ORUS
Live6agents running8positions heldForward test

The desk,
in the open.

12 strategies run side by side on live market data. Every rule they check, every token they refuse and every trade they close is written down and published here — the losses with the rest.

The strategies on the board are test configurations and the numbers they produce are provisional — calibration is ongoing.

Decisions · last 168h
26,456,328
Tokens vetted
3,209+
Refused per signal
5929:1
Trades closed
1,532
Median hold
20m
Median trade
−28.1%
deciding, right nowFull tape ↓
  • 04:08:48read the chain and enriched what looked alive (186 vs 186)
  • 04:08:19Ariatoo few holders (684 vs 1,000)
  • 04:08:19read the chain and enriched what looked alive (119 vs 120)
Live
closedCASHED+2.2%20m
closedJEV−8.3%20m
closedSI−30.5%20m
closedBEORN+11.1%3.0h
closedWILLIE−19.2%20m
closedSI−61.9%20m
closedCASHED−10.0%20m
closedSI−8.6%20m
closedSI−0.7%20m
closed9e9−4.6%20m
closedSI−6.2%20m
closedSI−3.7%20m
closedCEST−4.6%20m
closedSI−7.6%20m
closedBEORN−22.5%20m
closedASKR−5.0%20m
closedCASHED−16.1%20m
closedCEST+18.3%12.0h
closedOZZY−11.4%20m
closedVLAD+11.1%20m
closedVLAD+276.3%4m
closedFAITH+3.7%20m
closedWORLDIE−57.2%3.0h
closedWORLDIE−49.4%20m
closedASKR−8.7%20m
01 / The book

Marked to every close,
including the bad ones.

One point per closed trade. These trades never shared a wallet, so the line is what a single 12 ETH book would have done taking every one of them — 12 ETH because the most this desk ever had deployed at once was 10.74.

The book

05 Sept, 23:58 → 19 Sept, 23:34 UTC
The book now
971
started at 1,000
−0.343 ETH on 25.77 ETH staked across 1,532 trades.
Worst point
955
Return on capital
−1.33%
Median trade
−28.1%
Win rate
32.5%

Where the returns sit

31%
21%
9%
6%
9%
12%
10%
1%
≤ −50%
−50 to −25
−25 to −10
−10 to 0
0 to +25
+25 to +100
+100 to +300
> +300%

1,034 of 1,532 trades closed down, most of them badly. The book is carried by the right-hand tail — the few that were left alone to run.

Best exits

best first
TokenStrategyHeldETHResult
EXAMCN
11 Sept, 14:34 UTC
Launch L5 Cap305m+0.0302+603.5%
jar
11 Sept, 06:02 UTC
Launch L5 Cap3022m+0.0265+530.9%
FLYBOOK
11 Sept, 12:31 UTC
Launch L5 Cap304m+0.0259+518.3%
FLY
10 Sept, 17:09 UTC
Launch L5 Cap3037m+0.1008+503.9%
RECORD
16 Sept, 20:27 UTC
Mcap M2 Dip704m+0.0832+415.8%
HASHTOWN
11 Sept, 08:22 UTC
Launch L5 Cap3021m+0.0188+376.2%
GEMI
12 Sept, 16:22 UTC
Launch L5 Cap304m+0.0177+354.3%
AXI
13 Sept, 14:43 UTC
Orus fly L17m+0.0695+347.7%
02 / Live

Watch it
make up its mind.

The live decision log, straight from the engine. Identical consecutive refusals are collapsed — a standing no is one line, not two hundred.

Decision tape

UTC
scan reading the chain for anything new
filter the token itself — supply, holders, taxes, age
chart the price — how deep the dip, and how long ago
signal every rule met; an entry is on the table
monitor a held position, and whether its exits are met
streaming · every 8s
  • 04:08:48scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (186 vs 186)
  • 04:08:19filterAriatoo few holders (684 vs 1,000)
  • 04:08:19scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (119 vs 120)
  • 04:08:18executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 04:08:18scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (60 vs 60)
  • 04:08:17scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (186 vs 186)×2
  • 04:08:17scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (110 vs 113)
  • 04:08:16chartZEALthe dip never went deep enough (7.40 vs 50)
  • 04:08:16scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (91 vs 91)
  • 04:07:50chartASKRthe dip never went deep enough (35.08 vs 50)
  • 04:07:50scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (91 vs 91)
  • 04:07:50scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (186 vs 186)
  • 04:07:50executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 04:07:50scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (60 vs 60)
  • 04:07:50scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (119 vs 120)
  • 04:07:49filterVLADmarket cap under the floor (132,547 vs 200,000)
  • 04:07:49scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (186 vs 186)
  • 04:07:47scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (110 vs 113)
  • 04:07:20scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (119 vs 120)
  • 04:07:20scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (186 vs 186)
  • 04:07:19executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 04:07:19scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (60 vs 60)
  • 04:07:18scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (91 vs 91)
  • 04:07:18scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (110 vs 113)
  • 04:07:16scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (186 vs 186)
  • 04:06:48monitorSIholding — no exit condition met (1.31 vs 2)
  • 04:06:48scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (119 vs 120)
  • 04:06:46scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (91 vs 91)
  • 04:06:46chartFOMOEGGthe dip never went deep enough (47.32 vs 70)
  • 04:06:46scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (200 vs 200)
  • 04:06:45scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (124 vs 127)
  • 04:06:44executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 04:06:44scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (67 vs 67)
  • 04:06:44scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (200 vs 200)
  • 04:06:17scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (91 vs 91)
  • 04:06:17scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (119 vs 120)
  • 04:06:15executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 04:06:15scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (64 vs 64)
  • 04:06:15filterNOSHmarket cap under the floor (165,345 vs 1,000,000)
  • 04:06:15scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (197 vs 197)
  • 04:06:14filterNOSHmarket cap under the floor (165,345 vs 200,000)
  • 04:06:14filterLUMImarket cap under the floor (196,528 vs 200,000)
  • 04:06:14scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (197 vs 197)
  • 04:06:14scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 124)
  • 04:05:48filterNSTRATmarket cap under the floor (138,789 vs 200,000)
  • 04:05:48scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (196 vs 196)
  • 04:05:47scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (120 vs 123)
  • 04:05:47filterROUTElisted too long ago (297.73 vs 48)
  • 04:05:47scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (196 vs 196)
  • 04:05:46scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (119 vs 120)
  • 04:05:45executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 04:05:45scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (63 vs 64)
  • 04:05:45scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (91 vs 91)
  • 04:05:16chartFOMOEGGthe dip never went deep enough (41.74 vs 70)
  • 04:05:16scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (195 vs 195)
  • 04:05:15scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (119 vs 120)
  • 04:05:14scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (91 vs 91)
  • 04:05:14executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 04:05:14scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (62 vs 63)
  • 04:05:14scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (195 vs 195)
  • 04:05:13scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (119 vs 122)
  • 04:04:47scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (91 vs 91)
  • 04:04:46filterJEVmarket cap under the floor (841,185 vs 1,000,000)
  • 04:04:46scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (195 vs 195)
  • 04:04:46filterNSTRATmarket cap under the floor (116,678 vs 200,000)
  • 04:04:46scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (195 vs 195)
  • 04:04:46executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 04:04:46scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (62 vs 63)
  • 04:04:46scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (119 vs 120)
  • 04:04:44scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (119 vs 122)
  • 04:04:17scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (119 vs 120)
  • 04:04:15chartFOMOEGGthe dip never went deep enough (41.14 vs 70)
  • 04:04:15scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (195 vs 195)
  • 04:04:15scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (91 vs 91)
  • 04:04:15filterJEVmarket cap under the floor (778,863 vs 1,000,000)
  • 04:04:15scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (195 vs 195)
  • 04:04:15scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (119 vs 122)
  • 04:04:14executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 04:04:14scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (62 vs 63)
  • 04:03:46filterCESTmarket cap under the floor (162,964 vs 1,000,000)
  • 04:03:46scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (195 vs 195)
  • 04:03:46scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (119 vs 122)
  • 04:03:45executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 04:03:45scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (62 vs 63)
  • 04:03:45chartZEALthe dip never went deep enough (12.51 vs 50)
  • 04:03:45scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (91 vs 91)
  • 04:03:45scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (119 vs 120)
  • 04:03:44filterNSTRATmarket cap under the floor (117,251 vs 200,000)
  • 04:03:44scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (195 vs 195)
  • 04:03:17scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (119 vs 120)
  • 04:03:15filterNOSHmarket cap under the floor (180,134 vs 200,000)
  • 04:03:15filterJEANPHILtoo new to read (0.08 vs 0.08)
  • 04:03:15filter9e9market cap under the floor (192,998 vs 200,000)
  • 04:03:15filterLUMImarket cap under the floor (199,991 vs 200,000)
  • 04:03:15scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (195 vs 195)
  • 04:03:15scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (119 vs 122)
  • 04:03:14scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (91 vs 91)
  • 04:03:14filterNOSHmarket cap under the floor (180,134 vs 1,000,000)
  • 04:03:14filterJEANPHILtoo new to read (0.08 vs 0.08)
  • 04:03:14scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (195 vs 195)
  • 04:03:14executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 04:03:14scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (62 vs 63)
  • 04:02:50scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (119 vs 122)
  • 04:02:50scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (91 vs 91)
  • 04:02:50filterJEANPHILtoo new to read (0.07 vs 0.08)
  • 04:02:50scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (195 vs 195)
  • 04:02:50scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (120 vs 121)
  • 04:02:48executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 04:02:48scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (62 vs 63)
  • 04:02:47chartFOMOEGGthe dip never went deep enough (41.29 vs 70)
  • 04:02:47filterJEANPHILtoo new to read (0.07 vs 0.08)
  • 04:02:47scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (195 vs 195)
  • 04:02:19scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 122)
  • 04:02:19executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 04:02:19scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (62 vs 63)
  • 04:02:17scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (119 vs 122)
  • 04:02:17scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (91 vs 91)
  • 04:02:17filterNSTRATmarket cap under the floor (116,795 vs 200,000)
  • 04:02:17filterJEANPHILtoo new to read (0.06 vs 0.08)
  • 04:02:17scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (195 vs 195)
  • 04:02:17filterJEANPHILtoo new to read (0.06 vs 0.08)
  • 04:02:17scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (195 vs 195)
  • 04:01:45executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 04:01:45scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (61 vs 62)
  • 04:01:45monitorSIholding — no exit condition met (1.36 vs 2)
  • 04:01:45scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (120 vs 121)
  • 04:01:45filterJEANPHILtoo new to read (0.05 vs 0.08)
  • 04:01:45scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (194 vs 194)
  • 04:01:44chartZEALthe dip never went deep enough (14.99 vs 50)
  • 04:01:44scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (91 vs 91)
  • 04:01:44filterJEANPHILtoo new to read (0.05 vs 0.08)
  • 04:01:44filterNOSHmarket cap under the floor (145,110 vs 200,000)
  • 04:01:44scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (194 vs 194)
  • 04:01:43scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (118 vs 121)
  • 04:01:18scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (120 vs 121)
  • 04:01:18scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (194 vs 194)
  • 04:01:17scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (118 vs 121)
  • 04:01:17scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (91 vs 91)
  • 04:01:16executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 04:01:16scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (60 vs 61)
  • 04:01:16filterJEANPHILtoo new to read (0.05 vs 0.08)
  • 04:01:16scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (194 vs 194)
  • 04:00:47chartASKRthe dip never went deep enough (36.00 vs 50)
  • 04:00:47scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (120 vs 121)
  • 04:00:46filterNOSHmarket cap under the floor (156,539 vs 200,000)
  • 04:00:46scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (194 vs 194)
  • 04:00:45chartZEALthe dip never went deep enough (18.29 vs 50)
  • 04:00:45scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (91 vs 91)
  • 04:00:45executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 04:00:45scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (60 vs 61)
  • 04:00:44filterCESTmarket cap under the floor (162,871 vs 1,000,000)
  • 04:00:44filterJEANPHILtoo new to read (0.04 vs 0.08)
  • 04:00:44scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (194 vs 194)
  • 04:00:44scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (118 vs 121)
  • 04:00:19executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 04:00:19filterANTSlisted too long ago (19.72 vs 1)
  • 04:00:19scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (60 vs 61)
  • 04:00:18scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 04:00:18filterNOSHmarket cap under the floor (168,951 vs 200,000)
  • 04:00:18scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (194 vs 194)
  • 04:00:18filterNOSHmarket cap under the floor (168,951 vs 1,000,000)
  • 04:00:18filterJEANPHILtoo new to read (0.03 vs 0.08)
  • 04:00:18scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (194 vs 194)
  • 04:00:17scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 122)
  • 04:00:15scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (118 vs 121)
  • 03:59:46filterJEANPHILtoo new to read (0.02 vs 0.08)
  • 03:59:46scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (194 vs 194)×2
  • 03:59:45scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:59:45scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (118 vs 121)
  • 03:59:45scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 122)
  • 03:59:44executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 03:59:44scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (60 vs 61)
  • 03:59:15scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:59:15filterROUTElisted too long ago (297.63 vs 48)
  • 03:59:15filterFOMOEGGmarket cap under the floor (549,819 vs 1,000,000)
  • 03:59:15filterJEVmarket cap under the floor (891,363 vs 1,000,000)
  • 03:59:15scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (194 vs 194)
  • 03:59:15scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (120 vs 121)
  • 03:59:15scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (118 vs 121)
  • 03:59:14filterNOSHmarket cap under the floor (150,822 vs 200,000)
  • 03:59:14scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (194 vs 194)
  • 03:59:14executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 03:59:14scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (60 vs 61)
  • 03:58:50scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (120 vs 121)
  • 03:58:50filterSUPERmarket cap under the floor (124,814 vs 200,000)
  • 03:58:50scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (192 vs 192)×2
  • 03:58:48scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:58:48executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 03:58:48scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (57 vs 58)
  • 03:58:46scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (116 vs 119)
  • 03:58:26filterNOSHmarket cap under the floor (161,945 vs 1,000,000)
  • 03:58:26filterJEVmarket cap under the floor (817,197 vs 1,000,000)
  • 03:58:26scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (191 vs 191)
  • 03:58:25scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:58:25scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 122)
  • 03:58:24scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (115 vs 118)
  • 03:58:24executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 03:58:24scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (56 vs 57)
  • 03:58:23filterNOSHmarket cap under the floor (161,945 vs 200,000)
  • 03:58:23scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (191 vs 191)
  • 03:57:47scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:57:47scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (120 vs 121)
  • 03:57:46filterNOSHmarket cap under the floor (120,341 vs 200,000)
  • 03:57:46chartFOMOEGGthe dip never went deep enough (44.98 vs 70)
  • 03:57:46scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (190 vs 190)×2
  • 03:57:45executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 03:57:45scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (55 vs 56)
  • 03:57:44scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (114 vs 117)
  • 03:57:24scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:57:23scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (190 vs 190)
  • 03:57:23scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (120 vs 121)
  • 03:57:20scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (190 vs 190)
  • 03:57:20scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (114 vs 117)
  • 03:57:19executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 03:57:19scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (55 vs 56)
  • 03:56:50scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:56:50filterFOMOEGGmarket cap under the floor (479,323 vs 1,000,000)
  • 03:56:50filterJEVmarket cap under the floor (917,420 vs 1,000,000)
  • 03:56:50scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (190 vs 190)
  • 03:56:49scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (114 vs 117)
  • 03:56:49chartFOMOEGGthe dip never went deep enough (46.55 vs 70)
  • 03:56:49scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (190 vs 190)
  • 03:56:49executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 03:56:49scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (56 vs 57)
  • 03:56:47monitorSIholding — no exit condition met (1.42 vs 2)
  • 03:56:47scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (120 vs 121)
  • 03:56:18filterJEVmarket cap under the floor (997,267 vs 1,000,000)
  • 03:56:18scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (189 vs 189)
  • 03:56:18scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:56:18scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (188 vs 188)
  • 03:56:17scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (120 vs 121)
  • 03:56:17scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (112 vs 115)
  • 03:56:15executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 03:56:15scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (54 vs 55)
  • 03:55:48scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 122)
  • 03:55:47scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (188 vs 188)
  • 03:55:46scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (112 vs 115)
  • 03:55:46scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:55:46executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 03:55:46scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (54 vs 55)
  • 03:55:45scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (188 vs 188)×2
  • 03:55:18scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 122)
  • 03:55:17scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:55:14executeTHOTinsufficient balance
  • 03:55:14signalTHOTevery rule met — an entry is on the table (8.81 vs 5)
  • 03:55:14chartTHOTcleared this stage (8.81 vs 5)
  • 03:55:14scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (55 vs 55)
  • 03:55:14scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (112 vs 115)
  • 03:55:14scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (188 vs 188)
  • 03:54:50scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:54:49scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 122)
  • 03:54:48filterJEVmarket cap under the floor (892,901 vs 1,000,000)
  • 03:54:48scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (188 vs 188)
  • 03:54:48scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (112 vs 115)
  • 03:54:47scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (55 vs 55)
  • 03:54:46scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (188 vs 188)×2
  • 03:54:20scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:54:20scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 122)
  • 03:54:17scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (55 vs 55)
  • 03:54:16scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (188 vs 188)
  • 03:54:16scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (112 vs 115)
  • 03:53:53scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 122)
  • 03:53:52scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (53 vs 53)
  • 03:53:51chartFAITHthe dip never went deep enough (39.17 vs 70)
  • 03:53:51scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (187 vs 187)
  • 03:53:51scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:53:50filterJEVmarket cap under the floor (824,263 vs 1,000,000)
  • 03:53:50scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (187 vs 187)
  • 03:53:50scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (111 vs 114)
  • 03:53:20scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 122)
  • 03:53:20scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (187 vs 187)
  • 03:53:19filterFOMOEGGmarket cap under the floor (585,006 vs 1,000,000)
  • 03:53:19filterJEVmarket cap under the floor (738,920 vs 1,000,000)
  • 03:53:19scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (187 vs 187)
  • 03:53:19scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (111 vs 114)
  • 03:53:19scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:53:18filterCMElisted too long ago (290.65 vs 1)
  • 03:53:18scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (53 vs 53)
  • 03:52:48chartTHOTthe dip never went deep enough (0.22 vs 5)
  • 03:52:48scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (52 vs 52)
  • 03:52:48scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 122)
  • 03:52:46scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:52:46scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (186 vs 186)×2
  • 03:52:45scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (110 vs 113)
  • 03:52:16scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:52:15scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (186 vs 186)
  • 03:52:15scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (110 vs 113)
  • 03:52:15scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 122)
  • 03:52:14chartTHOTthe dip never went deep enough (0.53 vs 5)
  • 03:52:14scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (51 vs 51)
  • 03:52:14scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (185 vs 185)
  • 03:51:52monitorSIholding — no exit condition met (1.36 vs 2)
  • 03:51:52scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 122)
  • 03:51:51scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (185 vs 185)
  • 03:51:51scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:51:51scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (51 vs 51)
  • 03:51:49scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (109 vs 112)
  • 03:51:48scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (185 vs 185)×2
  • 03:51:19scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:51:19scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 122)
  • 03:51:19filterNOSHmarket cap under the floor (112,796 vs 200,000)
  • 03:51:19scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (185 vs 185)
  • 03:51:19scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (51 vs 51)
  • 03:51:19scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (109 vs 112)
  • 03:50:48scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (185 vs 185)
  • 03:50:48scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 122)
  • 03:50:47scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (51 vs 51)
  • 03:50:47scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (185 vs 185)
  • 03:50:47scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (109 vs 112)
  • 03:50:47scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)×2
  • 03:50:24scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 122)
  • 03:50:23filterPRIORSmarket cap under the floor (118,453 vs 200,000)
  • 03:50:23scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (185 vs 185)
  • 03:50:23scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (51 vs 51)
  • 03:50:23scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (185 vs 185)
  • 03:50:21scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (109 vs 112)
  • 03:49:52scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (200 vs 200)×2
  • 03:49:51scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (122 vs 123)
  • 03:49:51scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (71 vs 71)
  • 03:49:50scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:49:49scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (124 vs 127)
  • 03:49:18scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 122)
  • 03:49:16scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (200 vs 200)
  • 03:49:15scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (71 vs 71)
  • 03:49:14scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:49:14scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (200 vs 200)
  • 03:49:14scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (124 vs 127)×2
  • 03:48:50scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (122 vs 123)
  • 03:48:49scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:48:48scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (71 vs 71)
  • 03:48:47filterJEVmarket cap under the floor (604,563 vs 1,000,000)
  • 03:48:47scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (200 vs 200)×2
  • 03:48:18scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (122 vs 123)
  • 03:48:18filterCESTmarket cap under the floor (159,006 vs 1,000,000)
  • 03:48:18scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (200 vs 200)
  • 03:48:16scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:48:16filterNOSHmarket cap under the floor (138,482 vs 200,000)
  • 03:48:16scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (200 vs 200)
  • 03:48:16scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (71 vs 71)
  • 03:48:16scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (124 vs 127)
  • 03:47:45scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (200 vs 200)
  • 03:47:45scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (122 vs 123)
  • 03:47:45scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (124 vs 127)
  • 03:47:45scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (71 vs 71)
  • 03:47:44scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:47:44scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (200 vs 200)
  • 03:47:18filterNOSHmarket cap under the floor (158,343 vs 1,000,000)
  • 03:47:18scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (200 vs 200)
  • 03:47:17scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 122)
  • 03:47:17scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (124 vs 127)
  • 03:47:16scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:47:16scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (200 vs 200)
  • 03:47:15scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (71 vs 71)
  • 03:46:46scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:46:46scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (200 vs 200)
  • 03:46:45monitorSIholding — no exit condition met (1.23 vs 2)
  • 03:46:45scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 122)
  • 03:46:45scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (124 vs 127)
  • 03:46:44scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (200 vs 200)
  • 03:46:43scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (71 vs 71)
  • 03:46:24scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:46:22scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (124 vs 127)
  • 03:46:22scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 122)
  • 03:46:21scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (200 vs 200)×2
  • 03:46:21scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (71 vs 71)
  • 03:45:48scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 122)
  • 03:45:48scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:45:47scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (124 vs 127)
  • 03:45:47scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (200 vs 200)×2
  • 03:45:46scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (71 vs 71)
  • 03:45:16filterFOMOEGGmarket cap under the floor (650,930 vs 1,000,000)
  • 03:45:16scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (200 vs 200)
  • 03:45:16scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:45:15scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 122)
  • 03:45:14filterNOSHmarket cap under the floor (142,556 vs 200,000)
  • 03:45:14scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (200 vs 200)
  • 03:45:14scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (70 vs 70)
  • 03:45:14scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (123 vs 126)
  • 03:44:52scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (200 vs 200)
  • 03:44:52scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (123 vs 126)
  • 03:44:51filterJEVmarket cap under the floor (640,903 vs 1,000,000)
  • 03:44:51scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (200 vs 200)
  • 03:44:51scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (70 vs 70)
  • 03:44:50scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (121 vs 122)
  • 03:44:50scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (92 vs 92)
  • 03:44:19scanread the chain and enriched what looked alive (122 vs 123)

Right now

6 running
Agents running
6
Strategies
12
Positions open
8
Win rate
33%
of closed trades ended up

Open positions

8 held · marked live
  • MACRO
    Launch L5 Cap30 · held 9.4d
    +46.9%
  • INFERNET
    Launch L5 Cap30 · held 9.4d
    +37.3%
  • SI
    1M+ NoSL · held 6.5h
    +30.2%
  • credit
    Launch L5 Cap30 · held 9.4d
    +16.0%
  • DCA
    Launch L5 Cap30 · held 9.4d
    +4.1%
  • STONK
    Launch L5 Cap30 · held 9.4d
    −0.0%
  • Orus
    Launch L5 Cap30 · held 9.4d
    −0.1%
  • MINER
    Launch L5 Cap30 · held 9.4d
    −29.8%

Latest exits

most recent first
TokenStrategyHeldETHResult
CASHED
19 Sept, 23:34 UTC
Mcap M2 Dip7020m+0.0004+2.2%
JEV
19 Sept, 22:32 UTC
Mcap M2 Dip7020m−0.0017−8.3%
SI
19 Sept, 19:37 UTC
Mcap M2 Dip7020m−0.0061−30.5%
BEORN
19 Sept, 18:39 UTC
Kayle3.0h+0.0011+11.1%
WILLIE
19 Sept, 18:35 UTC
Mcap M2 Dip7020m−0.0038−19.2%
SI
19 Sept, 17:38 UTC
Mcap M2 Dip7020m−0.0124−61.9%
CASHED
19 Sept, 17:25 UTC
Mcap M1 Gate1M20m−0.0020−10.0%
SI
19 Sept, 17:16 UTC
Mcap M1 Gate1M20m−0.0017−8.6%
SI
19 Sept, 17:05 UTC
Mcap M1 Gate1M20m−0.0001−0.7%
9e9
19 Sept, 16:59 UTC
Mcap M2 Dip7020m−0.0009−4.6%

How the desk is wired

Capital
At least one agent executes with real funds; every scoreboard row carrying real money is tagged LIVE.
Chain
Robinhood Chain — an Arbitrum Nitro L2, gas in ETH, roughly 100ms blocks.
Sizing
Strategies commit different amounts per entry, so the scoreboard is ranked by average return rather than by absolute result — otherwise it would be ranking bet sizes.
Pricing
Positions are marked against live market data on every cycle, not against the quote that opened them.
Not shown
Wallet addresses, transaction hashes and full strategy configuration. This page is a window onto the decisions, not the plumbing.
03 / Analyses

What it found
when it looked closer.

Every token the desk actually buys gets a full write-up — supply, holders, the deployer's history, how the launch went. The ones already published are here.

Published write-ups

306 published · 2,960 queued
04 / Discipline

Mostly, the answer
is no.

An agent earns its keep by what it declines. Every test below was run against a real token in the last 168 hours, and almost all of them ended the same way — a rule was not met, so nothing happened.

From decision to trade

last 168h · share of all decisions
  1. 01Decisions logged
    100%26,456,328

    every test the engine ran against a real token

  2. 02Refused
    92%24,469,443

    a rule was not met — the token's, the chart's, or the desk's own spending cap

  3. 03Cleared to a signal
    0.02%4,127

    every rule met at once

  4. 04Trades closed
    0.00%596

    entered and exited inside the same window

05 / Scoreboard

Every strategy,
ranked by what it returned.

The same market, the same window, different rules. The ones in the red stay on the board — that is the point of running them all at once.

Standings

15 entrants
#StrategyTradesWin rateAvgBestMedian holdResult ETH
01sim9548%+10%+416%20m+0.189
02sim250%+10%+20%17m+0.002
03sim12643%+5%+333%3.0h+0.069
04live1533%+2%+230%20m+0.002
05sim14437%+2%+269%20m+0.022
06sim2846%+2%+63%3.6h+0.050
07sim4935%+1%+176%12.0h+0.052
08sim30626%−3%+348%11m−0.171
09live76730%−8%+604%20m−0.556
10sim00.000
11sim00.000
12sim00.000
13sim00.000
14sim00.000
15sim00.000

This is the house against itself. The house against every account that runs on Orus is the leaderboard →

06 / The system

Not a bot with a threshold.
An analyst that never sleeps.

Everything above came out of one loop, running every minute: read the chain, take the token apart, decide, size it, and write down why. The strategies are the dial settings — the machine is what turns them.

01

Reads the chain

Every new pool on Robinhood Chain, screened on volume, liquidity and market cap before anything else runs. Hundreds of tokens a day narrowed to the few worth a second look.

02

Takes the token apart

Supply concentration, bundler and sniper wallets, the deployer's other launches, transfer taxes, honeypot checks — the things that decide whether a chart is even real.

03

Writes the analysis

Tokens that clear the rules get a full report: the dip, the holders, the launch, the liquidity, and a verdict in plain English. Published here as they are finished.

04

Trades its own rules

Entry, take profit, stop loss and holding time are fixed before the trade opens, and the exit is marked to what actually came back — never to the quote that opened it.

Runs in parallel

12 strategies compete on the same market at the same time. One market, one window, different rules — which is the only honest way to find out which rules are worth having.

Says no by default

5929 refusals for every signal. The agent does nothing unless every condition is met at once, and the reason it declined is written down either way.

Shows its working

Every decision on this page came from the engine's own log, with the measurement that produced it. Nothing is summarised after the fact, and nothing that lost money has been left out.

Your rules next

Run your own
on the same rails.

Define the conditions, deploy an agent, and watch it work in the same detail you just read.