Wallet tracking
A repeatable workflow for Hyperliquid wallet research
A repeatable wallet review starts with a written question and ends with an evidence record. Keep the address, period, metric definitions and observation times consistent, then record what changed. This makes the next review comparable even when the wallet or the available history changes.
Write the question before opening the leaderboard
Choose a question that public data can answer: Is this wallet becoming more concentrated? Does its recent result depend on one open position? Is its current exposure consistent with its observed trading history? These are more useful research tasks than searching for the best trader, which leaves both best and the evidence period undefined.
Create a note with four fields: account address, review period, question and comparison basis. Use the account you intend to inspect, rather than assuming its agent address represents the same history. Start from WalletFollow Discover, open the profile and confirm the full address. Record unavailable inputs at this stage instead of repairing them with guesses later.
Capture a small evidence packet
Record the relevant observation times, account value, open exposure and performance basis. Add the history coverage and any warning that changes interpretation. Keep a position snapshot separate from a closed-trade result: they answer different questions and may rely on different inputs. A screenshot is useful context, but a number without its label or timestamp is difficult to audit.
For each conclusion, attach the fact that supports it. For example, a concentration observation should identify the dominant market and how exposure was measured. A statement about improving results needs a consistent earlier comparison. Keep the packet small enough that another reader could check the argument without reconstructing your entire browsing session.
Test a competing explanation
Before interpreting an equity increase as skill, check whether capital arrived. Before describing a position as a new bet, check whether the fills reduced an existing trade. Before praising a high win rate, read the sample size and loss amounts. A useful research note includes one alternative explanation and says whether the available evidence can distinguish it.
Public wallet analysis may leave external hedges, owner identity and missing history unresolved. Label those limits explicitly. Your conclusion can remain narrow: the observed account has concentrated exposure at the recorded time. It does not need to become a prediction about the person or the next market move.
Make the next review a comparison
Keep the original note and append the new observation. Separate changes in positions from changes in coverage or calculation. If a metric becomes available after a history update, record that as new evidence rather than automatically calling it improved performance. If the review period changes, start a new comparison instead of silently replacing the old baseline.
Finish with the question answered, the supporting observations, the remaining uncertainty and the next fact to check. The workflow produces a research record; following an address and activating a copy subscription remain separate decisions.