ADL Dashboard - HIP3 Markets

At a glance

This dashboard explores auto-deleveraging risk in Hyperliquid HIP3 markets. Auto-deleveraging can close profitable positions on the opposite side when an underwater position cannot be resolved normally. The dashboard makes the queue and stressed-liquidity assumptions visible, which is useful for understanding that risk; its estimates are not a promise that a position is safe.

Good fit

A reader who already understands perpetual futures and wants to examine how an ADL scenario depends on market liquidity. Market mode works without supplying an address. The queue ranks positions by profit and leverage, while separate charts explore cumulative position size and the estimated amount needing ADL under stress.

Consider something else when

You need a trade recommendation, a guaranteed liquidation threshold or an independently validated risk engine. The dashboard changes its assumptions about available order-book liquidity rather than predicting a future order book. A zero estimate under one setting cannot rule out loss or forced closure under different conditions.

Start here

Choose Market mode, open the HIP3 market selector and select a market. Read the queue side and Liquidity Adjustment before interpreting the charts. Compare a lower-liquidity scenario with the default. In the inspected xyz:INTC snapshot, changing the adjustment from 50% to 10% changed the aggregate Amount needing ADL from zero to about $3.96 million. That illustrates sensitivity to an assumption, not a forecast.

Cost and requirements

The public market view loaded without an account, payment, wallet connection or signature. Address mode asks for a public wallet address rather than a private key; supplying one associates that query with your browsing session. The page credits Hydromancer for data, so availability and freshness depend on external data as well as the interface.

Limits to know

The FAQ describes discounting the order book toward liquidation prices and checking whether positions can close before bankruptcy. Inputs, refresh cadence and model calibration are not established by that explanation. In the 10% trial, the aggregate ADL amount also differed from the single visible top-risk row’s amount; the relationship between those totals needs clarification. Use it to frame questions about exposure rather than automate trading from its headline number.

Still unclear

• How fresh and complete are the position/order-book inputs, and how has the stress calculation been validated?
• How does the aggregate Amount needing ADL relate to the amounts in the filtered Top Risk Positions table?