What Hyperliquid and GMX Whales Are Holding: November 2026 Report

This is the first edition of a monthly report on what the largest traders on public derivatives markets hold. Most coverage of this subject follows a single famous wallet. This report measures the whole group at one moment, using positions Deep Blue Alpha reads directly from each market's public data. Our derivatives guide covers options, past cases and regulation, and our bridge flow report covers money moving between Ethereum and Hyperliquid, so neither subject is repeated here.

Why is this a baseline and not a trend?

Hyperliquid tracking began at 19:13 UTC on November 4, 2026, about 17 hours before this read. GMX tracking began at 11:49 UTC on November 5, less than an hour before. One snapshot can show how positions are distributed. It cannot show whether anything is rising or falling, whether these traders do well over time, or what happens after a position like these.

The age of a position is also mostly unknown to us. Only 143 positions worth $109.59M, or 1.6% of Hyperliquid dollars, first appeared after our opening read. The other 98.4% already existed when tracking started. So this report never says when a position was opened unless we saw it happen. Later editions compare against this one, and any change gets reported with its dates.

How much are Hyperliquid and GMX whales holding?

Hyperliquid's whale book is 170 times the size of GMX's, so the two are not peers in this report. The Hyperliquid numbers carry the statistical weight, and GMX is a much smaller second view with a different whale rule.

The 729 Hyperliquid accounts break down as 645 active whales, 67 that had made no trades this month but still held a position, and 17 that recently fell off the $1M list and stay on the board until their positions end. Another 1,036 accounts on the list of 1,748 held no position of $10K or more. Well over half of the Hyperliquid whale list was out of the market at this moment, at least above that size. GMX's 98 wallets are the 96 at or above its $100K line plus 2 that recently fell under it.

Which coins hold the money?

Hyperliquid whale positions, top 10 coins by dollars

Short (left)Long (right)

ETH

$905.80M

$899.98M

BTC

$934.36M

$752.56M

HYPE

$561.36M

$563.48M

ZEC

$277.27M

$212.80M

SOL

$185.51M

$174.99M

XRP

$72.03M

$80.05M

NEAR

$38.22M

$51.99M

LIT

$42.04M

$33.04M

XMR

$47.23M

$25.52M

PUMP

$33.03M

$24.40M

Five coins held 82.1% of Hyperliquid whale dollars out of 160 with any whale position. ETH ($1.806B) was slightly larger than BTC ($1.687B), and HYPE, Hyperliquid's own token, was third at $1.125B. ZEC at $490.07M ranked above SOL at $360.51M.

Hyperliquid coins in detail

Coin	Long	Short	Long %	Positions L / S	Whale share of OI
ETH	$899.98M	$905.80M	49.8%	102 / 123	72.5%
BTC	$752.56M	$934.36M	44.6%	160 / 119	54.6%
HYPE	$563.48M	$561.36M	50.1%	168 / 171	61.9%
ZEC	$212.80M	$277.27M	43.4%	91 / 78	69.0%
SOL	$174.99M	$185.51M	48.5%	51 / 78	64.5%
XRP	$80.05M	$72.03M	52.6%	23 / 51	68.6%
NEAR	$51.99M	$38.22M	57.6%	51 / 50	50.9%
LIT	$33.04M	$42.04M	44.0%	57 / 40	56.6%
XMR	$25.52M	$47.23M	35.1%	27 / 42	48.5%
PUMP	$24.40M	$33.03M	42.5%	28 / 43	55.5%
DOGE	$25.05M	$23.80M	51.3%	22 / 30	64.8%
VVV	$17.40M	$22.59M	43.5%	23 / 38	65.3%

Share of open interest uses Hyperliquid's reported figure, which counts both sides. See the open interest section.

On GMX, BTC and ETH were 80.1% of whale dollars. BTC stood at $19.16M (48.8% long) and ETH at $12.19M (48.6% long), both close to even. Third was NATGAS, a natural gas market, at $1.32M. It had seven positions, so one wallet could move that share a long way.

Funding offered no extra information at this moment. 145 of 179 Hyperliquid markets, including BTC, ETH, HYPE, ZEC and SOL, sat at exactly 0.00125% an hour, the baseline rate in Hyperliquid's documentation, which is paid to shorts. Funding comes from the market as a whole and not from whales alone, so we show it only as context.

Why do long and short counts disagree with dollars?

A long share has at least three honest answers, and they differ:

Accounts lean long and positions lean short because short books are wider. The 377 accounts with a short held 6.0 short positions each on average, while the 509 with a long held 3.0. Longs are fewer but larger, averaging $2.08M against $1.55M for shorts.

The same gap shows at coin level. In BTC, 57.3% of positions were long but only 44.6% of dollars. XRP went the other way: 31.1% of positions and 52.6% of dollars. A headline "whales are short" or "whales are long" depends on which of these a source counted, so any comparison between trackers needs to check that first.

What share of open interest do whales hold?

Tracked whales held 61.1% of Hyperliquid's reported open interest of $10.903B across 179 markets: 29.0% from longs and 32.1% from shorts. Market makers are excluded from these whale totals, so the rest of that figure includes market makers and every account below the $1M line.

The definition matters here, because it changes the answer by a factor of two. A September 2026 market report by CoinsProbe, carried on KuCoin, attributes a two-sided definition to a Hyperliquid announcement, with longs and shorts added together. We could not find that statement in Hyperliquid's own documentation. Token Terminal uses a one-sided figure for its own metric, and HyperTracker's page showed "over $5B" when we opened it on November 5, close to half our reported number.

Our data offers a test. If the figure counts both sides, whale longs or whale shorts in a coin can never exceed 50% of it, because each side is exactly half. If it counted one side, thin markets dominated by whales would often go past 50%. Across all 160 coins the highest single-side share was 48.0%, in HMSTR, and 14 coins were above 40%, so the numbers pile up beneath that ceiling and none crosses it. That result fits the two-sided reading, and we use it here. On that basis whales held about 58% of all long dollars and 64% of all short dollars. Sources quoting whale share on a one-sided base get a number twice as large.

By coin, the whale share ran from 54.6% in BTC to 72.5% in ETH among the five largest. On GMX, whales held 75.0% of $52.22M in open interest, which we total from GMX's long and short figures. That higher share partly reflects GMX's small size and its whale rule, which starts from position size.

How much leverage are whales using?

The usual headline number is the leverage setting on each position. Weighted by dollars, it was 12.6x (longs 12.8x, shorts 12.4x). The median position was at 5x. 35.6% of dollars were set above 10x, and 12.4% above 20x.

That setting overstates the risk of many accounts. 93.5% of Hyperliquid whale dollars used cross margin, where the whole account backs the position. Hyperliquid's documentation states that under cross margin the liquidation price does not depend on the leverage chosen. A cleaner measure divides total position dollars by perp account equity. Across the 729 accounts that came to 5.2x ($6.660B on $1.289B), with a median account at 5.7x.

So the same book reads as 12.6x or 5.2x depending on the method. Accounts with both longs and shorts also make this gross figure larger than their net exposure. On GMX, where we compute leverage as position size over collateral, the dollar-weighted figure was 10.6x with a median of 4.3x, and individual positions ran as high as 99x.

How large are the positions, and how concentrated?

The 124 Hyperliquid positions of $10M or more were 3.3% of the count and 57.5% of the dollars. The 1,396 positions under $100K were 37.0% of the count and 0.9% of the dollars. The largest GMX position was $1.92M, well under the $10M line of that top Hyperliquid band.

The 10 largest Hyperliquid positions

#	Coin	Side	Size	Leverage setting	Open profit
1	ETH	Short	$205.77M	5x	-$7.45M
2	BTC	Short	$186.25M	5x	-$8.53M
3	BTC	Short	$155.16M	5x	-$3.73M
4	HYPE	Long	$113.08M	5x	$59.71M
5	ETH	Short	$88.71M	5x	-$1.21M
6	BTC	Long	$80.02M	3x	$7.25M
7	ETH	Long	$73.81M	10x	-$6.18M
8	ETH	Long	$72.88M	20x	$8.24M
9	ETH	Short	$72.32M	20x	-$3.83M
10	BTC	Short	$71.17M	25x	-$97.1K

Addresses are public on the live board. We do not identify who owns any wallet.

The top 10 positions totaled $1.119B, or 16.8% of whale dollars, and belonged to 8 accounts. Six were short, worth $779.37M. The short lean of the whole group is largely a product of this handful: without those 10 positions, longs would have been 51.0% of dollars.

By account, the concentration is stronger. The largest 10 accounts held 30.0% of whale dollars and the largest 50 held 57.5%. So a long share for "Hyperliquid whales" mostly describes a few dozen accounts. On GMX, the top 10 positions were 33.0% of dollars.

Which side had the open profit?

Here the two measures point in opposite directions. Hyperliquid longs held $104.08M in open profit while only 34.2% of them were in profit. Shorts were down $40.45M while 65.9% of them were in profit.

HYPE explains the dollars. HYPE longs held $100.25M of the longs' $104.08M, with a size-weighted average opening price of $67.35 against a $81.92 mark at the snapshot. A single $113.08M HYPE long accounted for $59.71M. HYPE shorts were down $65.39M. Remove HYPE and longs held $3.83M while shorts held $24.94M, which reverses the picture.

That average opening price also shows many of these HYPE longs are older than our tracking, since the gap is far larger than HYPE's 3.7% change over the prior day. It says nothing about whether those traders are skilled. An open profit is a mark on one day and only one part of a full record.

Which coins are most one-sided?

Small coins produce extreme numbers that mean little. SPX showed 0% long at this read, from 12 short positions worth just $1.19M. So this table sets a higher bar than the live board's: at least 10 positions and $5M. 41 coins cleared it.

Most one-sided Hyperliquid coins (10+ positions, $5M+)

Coin	Long %	Whale dollars	Positions L / S	Largest position
FARTCOIN	19.3%	$9.00M	11 / 15	25% of coin
ONDO	24.5%	$8.44M	4 / 27	14% of coin
PONS	26.9%	$6.03M	13 / 21	26% of coin
PAXG	31.3%	$11.27M	4 / 11	23% of coin
CASHCAT	33.0%	$12.92M	13 / 18	36% of coin
ENA	34.1%	$35.88M	34 / 40	23% of coin
XMR	35.1%	$72.75M	27 / 42	19% of coin
SUI	37.2%	$13.02M	12 / 30	27% of coin
AVAX	53.6%	$6.25M	13 / 23	22% of coin
MON	54.6%	$20.05M	7 / 29	25% of coin
BNB	56.1%	$19.02M	18 / 28	15% of coin
kPEPE	56.4%	$25.33M	16 / 19	15% of coin
NEAR	57.6%	$90.21M	51 / 50	16% of coin
UNI	59.8%	$39.90M	25 / 36	18% of coin

Sorted from most short-leaning to most long-leaning. Six long-leaning coins at the end of the table, eight short-leaning at the start.

The range is not symmetrical. 28 of the 41 coins leaned short, and 10 were under 40% long, down to 19.3% in FARTCOIN. None exceeded 60% long, the highest being UNI at 59.8%. Among whales at this moment, smaller coins with an uneven book mostly had more short dollars.

A one-sided book is a description of positions, nothing more. Any of these shorts can offset spot holdings elsewhere, and in a coin like PAXG, a gold-backed token, a short may be part of a spread. The last column shows how much one position contributes, so a reader can see where a single wallet drives the share.

How far are positions from liquidation?

$239.54M of longs (7.6%) and $39.65M of shorts (1.1%) sat within 10% of their liquidation price. Within 25% it was $851.64M of longs (26.9%) and $356.50M of shorts (10.2%). Only 4 positions, worth $1.30M, were within 5%.

The two sides aren't directly comparable. A price can fall at most 100%, while it can rise without limit, so distance runs differently for each. The largest short band sat more than 100% away, $1.458B, meaning price would need more than double. Meanwhile 1,054 long positions worth $559.39M, 17.7% of long dollars, reported no liquidation price at all. No short was missing one. Our reading is that those accounts hold enough margin that no price above zero liquidates them, but the Hyperliquid liquidation page we read doesn't describe this case, so treat that as our inference.

Under cross margin, a liquidation price also moves with the rest of the account, so it shifts whenever other positions change. And the same documentation shows positions over $100K are first partly closed in the order book, so reaching this price need not end the whole position at once. These distances therefore describe margin at one moment. For live levels by coin, see the BTC page.

What moves have been recorded so far?

Between 19:18 UTC on November 4 and the snapshot, we recorded 1,415 Hyperliquid changes of $100K or more, by 166 accounts, worth $464.01M in total. GMX recorded 3 in its first hour.

Whales added $171.19M to shorts and took $121.94M off them. On longs they added $78.68M and took $92.19M off. Much of the short side came from a few moves: the three largest added shorts were a $12.15M increase in ETH and $10.15M and $7.45M openings in ETH and ZEC. ETH saw $43.02M added to shorts and $3.62M to longs.

Of 58 full closes, 28 showed a profit at our last read before closing, and together they came to about -$77.6K. We do not call that a win rate. It covers 17 hours, and the profit figure is an estimate from the last reading before each close.

Are Ethereum whales and Hyperliquid whales the same people?

At the address level, rarely. An address is the only link public data gives, so that is what we measured. Of 35,285 wallets on our Ethereum whale list, 16 held a Hyperliquid position of $10K or more.

Seen from the other direction, the 16 accounts were 2.2% of Hyperliquid holders and 1.6% of whale dollars ($106.51M). So the two groups are almost entirely separate as addresses. GMX is further apart again. None of its 98 whale wallets are on the Ethereum list, and only 1 is on our $1M Hyperliquid list. On the wider leaderboard, 12 of them appear, 9 with $100K or more.

The 122 matches on the wider leaderboard are worth a closer look. 113 of them had traded at some point, and 65 had traded this month. 26 held under $10K. 52 held between $100K and $1M, which our $1M list misses by design. That leaderboard is also not a full list of accounts: it had 48,471 rows, while HyperTracker's page says it follows over 1.6 million wallets. So treat 122 as a minimum.

What do the overlap whales hold?

Positions of the 16 overlap accounts, top 8 coins

Short (left)Long (right)

ETH

$33.39M

$5.08M

BTC

$15.50M

$2.08M

HYPE

$5.76M

$5.05M

SOL

$2.35M

$6.37M

LIT

$5.39M

$2.21M

NEAR

$2.58M

$1.78M

UNI

$2.73M

$0

ENA

$1.32M

$976.5K

They held 79 positions in 33 coins, and their book leaned short: 28.3% long against 47.8% for all other whales. ETH was 36.1% of their dollars against 27.0% for the rest, with $33.39M short and $5.08M long. ZEC was just 1.5% against 7.5%.

Treat this comparison with care, because 16 accounts is a small group. The largest held 31.2% of its dollars and the top three held 61.4%. Without the largest account the long share rises to 41.2%, still below the 47.8% for the others, but the gap narrows a lot. The open-profit gap largely reflects that these accounts held few of the big HYPE longs. It tells us about one moment, not about which group is more skilled.

Are their shorts hedges against Ethereum holdings?

This is the first question a short from an Ethereum whale raises, and matching addresses lets us check it. 8 overlap accounts held an ETH position on Hyperliquid, 6 of them short. Only one held more ETH and WETH at that address than its short: $1.84M of ETH against a $144.6K short. The largest, at $21.80M, sat beside $3.3K of ETH and WETH, and $1.20M in total tracked holdings.

So at this address level, most of these shorts were not visibly offset by ETH in the same wallet. This doesn't rule out a hedge, because staked ETH isn't in this count and holdings can sit at another address or on an exchange. It does rule out the simple assumption that an Ethereum whale's short is automatically covering coins held in the same wallet.

What did they do on Ethereum?

Over the 30 days to the snapshot, 8 of the 41 addresses made real DEX swaps in coins: 12 buys worth $3.39M and 25 sells worth $2.78M. That is a thin sample, too small to show a pattern. The largest lines were WETH buys ($2.25M), cbBTC sells ($1.52M) and buys ($1.01M), and ENA sells ($714K). Exchange moves were larger: 49 withdrawals worth $26.88M and 1 deposit worth $528.4K. Of those withdrawals, $15.52M was USDC and USDT. Overall, 18 of 41 addresses showed any tracked Ethereum activity in that window.

Their tracked Ethereum holdings came to $83.15M with a median of $889.7K, last updated between October 25 and November 3. 18 held $1M or more, and one held more than $10M. 4 of the 16 position holders had under $10K on Ethereum at their last valuation, so for them Hyperliquid looks like where the money is now. We cannot see from this data whether it moved there. Our bridge flow report looks at that route.

What the overlap can and can't show

• It can show that the same address is on both lists at this time, and what that address held on each side.
• It can't show one person. One person can run many addresses, and Hyperliquid sub-accounts, which hold their own positions, mean a single master can have up to 10 more after $100,000 in volume, and up to 80 with far more volume. Our figure is a floor. A whale who holds on one Ethereum address and trades from a new one counts as no overlap.
• It can't show the true share of Ethereum whales using derivatives. Large exchanges such as Binance do not publish positions by account, so anything held there is invisible to us.
• The lists have different rules. The Ethereum list selects by holdings of about $150K and up in ETH and volatile tokens. The Hyperliquid list selects by a $1M balance, the GMX list by $100K in open positions. A wallet can be large on one and fail the others without any change in behavior.
• A match is weaker for contract wallets. For a normal key-held wallet, the same address normally means the same key. A smart contract address can be controlled differently on each network.

This also corrects a loose assumption. It is easy to speak of "whales" as one group that spans every market. Measured by address on November 5, they are mostly separate groups chosen by separate rules. See our lesson on who owns a wallet for why an address alone proves so little.

How was this measured?

The two rules measure different things, so they are not like for like. On GMX, a rule based on position size excludes large accounts that happen to be flat, which Hyperliquid's balance rule keeps on its list. GMX's docs also describe its pools as the counterparty to traders, while Hyperliquid runs an order book. Market makers are excluded on Hyperliquid because that much turnover points to quoting rather than holding a position.

The Hyperliquid list comes from the public leaderboard, so it misses other accounts, and our reads cover neither builder-deployed markets nor sub-accounts. A wallet's real exposure can be larger than the figures here.

Of 5,217 Hyperliquid position rows in the snapshot, 1,442 under $10K (worth $3.24M) were dropped, leaving 3,775. On GMX, 6 of 235 were dropped. All filters match the live board, so totals here agree with what the board showed at that moment. As a check, the board's public summary at 12:43 UTC showed $3.141B long and $3.474B short from 727 accounts, on a later reading than ours.

The $1M test uses the balance on Hyperliquid's public leaderboard, while the equity in the leverage section is the perp account value we read directly. The second is often lower: the median holder had $489.3K. We have not confirmed exactly why the two differ, so read leverage on equity as our own measure.

Other trackers set the line elsewhere. HyperTracker's page lists far more wallets and sorts them into size groups by perp equity, so it is the better source for smaller traders. Figures such as the $4.21 billion cited in our earlier guide came from third parties using other rules, so comparing them with this report does not show a change over time.

Common questions

How much do Hyperliquid whales hold in positions?

At 12:33 UTC on November 5, 2026, 729 Hyperliquid whale accounts tracked by Deep Blue Alpha held $6.660B in open perpetual positions: $3.165B long and $3.495B short, or 47.5% long by dollars. Counts cover main-market positions of $10K or more. Live figures are at /derivatives/hyperliquid.

Are Hyperliquid whales long or short?

Close to even by dollars, leaning short: 47.5% long at this snapshot. By position count the lean is larger, with 40.3% of positions long. Accounts tell a different story: 352 held only longs and 220 held only shorts. Some of the shorts can be hedges, which this data cannot separate.

What share of Hyperliquid open interest do whales hold?

61.1% of Hyperliquid's reported $10.903B open interest, which counts both longs and shorts. Whale longs were 29.0% of the reported figure and whale shorts 32.1%. On GMX on Arbitrum, the tracked whales held 75.0% of $52.22M.

Are Ethereum whales and Hyperliquid whales the same people?

Mostly not, at the address level. Of 35,285 wallets on our Ethereum whale list, 122 appeared on Hyperliquid's public leaderboard at any balance and 41 were on our $1M-and-up Hyperliquid list. 16 of those held positions of $10K or more, and none of the 98 GMX whale wallets were on the Ethereum list. One person can use several addresses, so this is a floor on real overlap.

Is there a Hyperliquid whale trend or win rate here?

No. Hyperliquid tracking began on November 4, 2026 and GMX on November 5, 2026. This report is a baseline snapshot. It shows positions at one moment and moves over about 17 hours, which is too short for a trend, a win rate or any view on what comes after.

How is a whale defined on Hyperliquid and GMX?

On Hyperliquid, an account with $1M or more on the public leaderboard that has traded, excluding accounts that never traded and market makers (monthly volume over 100 times balance). On GMX on Arbitrum, an account with $100K or more in open positions, because GMX has no public balance ranking. The two rules are not equal, so the two whale lists are not like for like. The Hyperliquid list comes from the public leaderboard, so it misses other accounts, builder-deployed markets and sub-accounts.

Bottom line

At this first reading, Hyperliquid whales held $6.660B, nearly even between long and short by dollars, in a market where they accounted for about 61% of reported open interest. Beneath that balance, longs and shorts differed in size, in width, in distance from liquidation and in open profit, and a few dozen accounts drove most of the dollars. GMX showed a far smaller book with a similar balance.

The same address rarely appears on both the Ethereum and derivatives lists. 16 of 35,285 Ethereum whale wallets held a Hyperliquid position, and none matched GMX. This edition sets the baseline. It does not establish a trend, a win rate or a view on prices. Later editions run the same queries against this set of numbers.