Planemo Trading

This alpha is still alive right now and can be executed just by clicking buttons on Hyperliquid. NFA and there is no free money in perps and everything carries risk. We've been busy this morning. Across 313 spot pairs and 526 perp listings, there is currently only one basis trade executable on HL. ethereum:0x31eea0edeb85b0cb65c1400bd2f4e487fd61b537's perp listing has been trading up to 2.5% higher than its spot equivalent over the last few hours, and we have been busy building a position here. While surely only temporary, shorting the perp currently pays 2% daily in funding on top. We are happy with the accumulated position for now, so sharing this here for everyone. Biggest risk is a liquidation wick on the perps side, so make sure you keep an eye on things and know what you are doing. We'll have this trade across many exchanges and fully automated soon on @PlanemoTrading.

How hard are you willing to work? While the majority on Twitter just posts about $XTEN being listed as a pre-market perp, those who are willing to look find opportunities to make money from the orderbooks. There have been plenty of simple arbitrage opportunities between @Lighter_xyz and @tradexyz (+Aster and Imperial too). You basically got a full 24 hours to click-trade and realize a 3-5% spread across exchanges. Limit order on XYZ, once filled, smash market order on Lighter (free account). Boom! You locked in 30+ bps. Once every two hours or so, spreads converged and you could exit and start the game from new (don't have to wait for token launch for reversal). For the last 2 hours, things have become much more difficult and the spread barely covers fees now (and any previously opened position can easily be closed at a profit now). Automated cross-exchange price arb like this will be part of our new platform launching this Q4.

Follow-up regarding the performance of our basis trade / funding capture strategy on Hyperliquid: This user account started with a USDC deposit of $7,000 which has grown to $7,235 within a month. This means month 1 returns were 3.36%, which is around a 50% APY. The PnL split is around 50/50 between funding payments and profits realized from price spreads. Mark-to-market PnL below shows a few bumps, but those are just temporary price drifts of mark prices. PnL by realized net profit is a straight line up to the right. Opportunities (extreme funding opportunities and price spreads between spot and perp) should only increase with time and the continued growth of Hyperliquid.

Doubling down on @OndoPerps: 2 new algos and a joint trading competition with up to $150,000 in prizes. Starts November 9, 2026 at 00:00 UTC. Ends December 21, 2026 at 00:00 UTC. How it works: - every week runs Monday 00:00 UTC to Monday 00:00 UTC and has its own prize pool of up to $25,000 - the pool is set by total Planemo Trading volume on Ondo Perps that week - the more you trade, the better it gets: the pool per $1m traded goes up at every tier - Ondo distributes prizes weekly, straight into your account - stacks with Ondo's regular USDC rewards program, and you keep earning Ondo points on top Weekly pool by total volume: - under $25m: $2,500 - $25m: $3,000 - $50m: $6,500 - $75m: $10,500 - $100m: $15,000 - $125m: $20,000 - $150m: $25,000, the weekly max Leaderboard goes live Monday, ranked by volume and updated hourly, so you can follow the race all week. To kick off the competition, we're also launching 2 new quantitative strategies: - Quantitative Basis: long spot, short perp. Collects funding from the perp and trades price differences between spot and perp. - Quantitative Funding Arbitrage: trades funding rate differences across correlated and cointegrated tickers and baskets. They join Orderbook Surge, Surge Pro, Momentum Edge, Hyperliquid Copytrading and Statistical Arbitrage, already live on Ondo. Start here: ondo.planemotrading.xyz Sign up right now and get ready for Monday. All Planemo Trading algos for Ondo Perps are eligible for the competition.

The prize pool just grew: A few hours in and the first milestone has already been reached. Rewards go up asymmetrically until the highest tier is reached, meaning your rewards per $ trading volume go up with the growth of total competition trading volume. Closing in on $30M traded on day 1, which is ~7% of total volume on @OndoPerps in the last 24 hours.

$150,000 trading competition live now. ondo.planemotrading.xyz/lead…

Buying the cheaper perp and selling the more expensive one doesn’t mean you’ve “locked in a profit.” Today’s big @Ondo news has sent ethereum:0xfaba6f8e4a5e8ab82f62fe7c39859fa577269be3 funding rates all over the place across perp DEXs. A good moment to show one of the less obvious traps in funding arbitrage, and a preview of the terminal coming to our new website in Q4. On paper, the trade is straightforward: long on one exchange, short on another, collect the funding difference. But what counts as a good entry? In the screenshot below, the thin green line shows that Extended has typically traded about 10bps below Hyperliquid over this window. So buying on Extended 10bps cheaper than you sell on Hyperliquid is a pretty ordinary entry. You’re getting the usual discount (aka 0). If that gap is still 10bps when you close, there’s no price spread profit to collect. And you’ve paid fees to get in and out. You can absolutely make money from funding with that entry. But if funding flips or you get a bad fill, there’s less room for things to go wrong. This is why the baseline matters. A persistent gap between two exchanges can look like an opportunity every time you open the chart. The useful question is: how far is the spread from its usual range, and how much of that deviation can you actually capture after fees and slippage? “Actually” is key: The price available for a tiny order may not be available at your size. Our statistical arbitrage strategies only enter on executable price dislocations. We want the opportunity to earn both funding and spread convergence, with more room to manage an early exit if the funding trade stops making sense. The new scanner will let you look for these setups manually. Some dislocations persist for several minutes, so you don’t always need to be the fastest bot to participate (you can just manually click). We’ll also offer historical data, because it helps to know whether a pair is worth watching in the first place. Some tickers trade within such a tight range across two venues that waiting for a meaningful dislocation can be a very long exercise. Funding arbitrage teaches you a lot of these details the first time you put a trade on. One worth learning beforehand: the spread you see isn’t necessarily the spread you get to keep.

Well, initial plan was to tweet something about how relaxed and superior systematic trading is on days like this, but new algo engine suffered first negative day today. Trading logic remains sound, but the infra broke a bit earlier today. Given the elevated volatility today, several 429 error storms on Hyperliquid left some stale orders on the book which got filled at outdated prices. It's fixed now, but just goes to show once again that infra and fixing edge cases is the whole game after the initial trading logic has been built. There will be more of those in the future, and every time this happens, the system will become better and more stable until no edge cases are left.

There are levels to this game. Congrats to @Linkus000 Given the timeline's infestation with LARPs, our brains are kind of conditioned to assume outrageous claims aren't true. Here also, we've seen a lot "fake" comments to this post, so we took a quick look with GPT-6 Astra. Spoiler: it's real. Since the original tweet, the wallet continued to be profitable: +$2,661.93 (+32.02%) in marked equity over the latest completed 20-hour window. Arcus provides hourly historical equity points, so these are the latest matching endpoints available. We checked for transfers, historical equity, account statistics and paginated fills. On September 29, a $599.49733 deposit brought the account balance to approximately $599.502626, including a tiny existing balance. At October 1, 19:00 UTC, the historical portfolio reported equity of approximately $5,930.135981. Subtract the starting balance: $5,930.135981 − $599.502626 = $5,330.633355. Rounded to cents: +$5,330.63. Exactly the green dollar PnL in the screenshot. The distinctive spike in the historical equity curve also matched. We also recomputed the first 72 hours after the deposit from individual fills: • 101,992 fills • $185.83 million turnover • $14,068.07 gross price PnL • $9,498.76 trading fees • $4,569.31 closed PnL after fees, before funding The $215 million figure needs a timestamp qualification: the account crossed that amount in lifetime turnover roughly 79 hours after the deposit. Lifetime fees at that point were $10,480.49, consistent with the screenshot’s rounded $10.5k. We reproduced the green dollar profit and corroborated the volume/fee totals. Now, the interesting part: trading. Around 64.7% of turnover was maker execution, meaning resting orders supplied liquidity. The remaining 35.3% was taker execution, crossing into existing liquidity. We observed post-only quotes, repeated amendments and orders that could take liquidity initially, then remain on the book and later receive maker fills. That makes “just quote both sides and collect the spread” an incomplete description. The sizing provides another clue. A strong approximation is that orders push inventory toward a market-specific dollar target. Imagine a target of roughly ±$20,000 and a current $8,000 long position. A buy could add approximately $12,000 to reach the positive target. A sell could be approximately $28,000, closing the long and continuing to the negative target. That describes the observed sizing shape. It doesn’t recover the exact pricing signal or explain every risk-limit change. The targets also changed across markets and sessions. Copying one observed order size would miss that behavior. Quote changes were fast. In one short BTC sample, selected bid updates had a median spacing of roughly 15 milliseconds. Other markets and sides behaved differently. That is an observed interval between exchange updates and not proof of a universal 15 ms strategy timer or the trader’s network latency. Profit was concentrated, too. During the original 72 hours: BTC generated +$3,301.69 after trading fees. ETH generated +$522.70. Together, they contributed approximately 84% of closed profit. Twenty markets traded. Fourteen made money; six lost money. High activity didn’t make every market profitable. Could Binance or Hyperliquid prices provide the fair-value reference? Plausibly. We couldn’t establish that this account uses either one. A useful external reference might also need to account for contract differences, USD versus USDT, funding and basis, stale data, and which venue moves first. Simply substituting Binance’s price for Arcus’s fair value doesn’t recover the strategy. What can be copied is substantial: the maker/taker execution structure, approximate inventory sizing, amendment behavior, market selection and fee accounting. What remains unidentified is the decision logic (secret sauce): the fair-value signal, quote offsets, when to cross the spread, when to retreat, how risk budgets change, and whether other accounts or venues hedge the exposure. Queue position matters as well. Our public observer received events roughly 96 ms after their exchange timestamps. That measures our observation delay, not the trader’s latency. The economics explain why those details matter. That first 72-hour run earned only 0.246 basis points of closed profit per dollar traded, after trading fees and before funding. An extra 0.25 basis points of cost across the same turnover would cost approximately $4,646, more than the entire measured profit. A reconstruction can look similar, generate enormous volume, and still lose money through slightly worse pricing, fees or execution. The fresh follow-up is impressive: the latest completed 20-hour window produced approximately $2,662 in marked profit, with no new deposits. But the hourly equity observations also show a 15.8% drawdown within that window. The public records support a profitable, highly active trading operation. They also show inventory risk, losing markets and an execution margin measured in fractions of a basis point. While you can observe the trades in extraordinary detail, you can't just copy it and get the same results.

Fix worked and we are back in business.🤝

Single image showing why funding arb is not free money. Graph shows backtested PNL of one of today's top opportunities (PURR), currently running at 450% APY. Very likely that in a few days this continues to be down only. Execution costs are excluded here, so reality looks even worse. It's of course possible to make money via funding, but it's rarely from these short-lived, extreme outliers masquerading as "opportunities". A sophisticated execution system that can open and close these high APY situations efficiently helps, but if you normalize these temporary returns over a year, you'll probably land somewhere around 20-30% APY (which of course is still good). And if that's the number to beat, basis arb becomes an interesting and more relaxed alternative (especially if done manually) that also offers less volatility. In contrast to many other funding rates comparison sites, our new platform (coming this Q4) will highlight funding arbs AND basis trades.

We currently have a lot of things cooking that can hopefully be announced in the next few days. In the meantime, we can however already show a little preview of what's possible with our new algo suite that will launch with our new platform coming later this year. With currently 8+ live exchange integrations, what happens if you put them all together into one big pot and let them talk to each other? Well, we did just that and our brand-new price arb algo has been running for its first full week today ($10k split across 3 exchanges in this example). APY won't scale like this of course, but it's still extremely promising especially if you compare it to our already very strong basis trade strategy (already live on Hyperliquid). We will have to see how access can be granted to this (vault?), as there is of course a capacity constraint and potential for cannibalization if users run this independently.