All insights

2025-11-2610 min readHyperAgent Ops

Cognitive Agents vs Legacy Bots on Hyperliquid

Why HyperAgent’s multi-role LLM stack outperforms rule-only bots on Hyperliquid when measured across Sharpe, VaR breaches, and runbook transparency.

Experiment design

We replayed 45 days of Hyperliquid BTC-PERP ticks. Control group: RSI/MACD bots with no governance. Treatment: HyperAgent Analyst → Boss → Executor, trained to uphold VaR < 1.5% and to publish thought logs.

Risk and performance delta

Legacy bots breached VaR eleven times and recorded an annualized Sharpe of 0.48. HyperAgent breached once (auto-paused immediately) and posted 1.91 Sharpe. The +80% sprint documented in the previous article is a concrete manifestation of this discipline.

Governance telemetry

Because each HyperAgent role writes decisions to Redis (`agent:logs:{user}`) and SQLite, compliance teams can audit prompts, edges, and overrides. Legacy bots gave us exactly zero artifacts beyond candle prints.

Cost efficiency

Multi-role agents dynamically downshift models. The system routes to optimal models based on task complexity while Executor runs deterministic Python. This keeps inference spend predictable even when desks run 24/7.

Integration path

Inside `/console/agents` you can import a JSON strategy, attach prompts, and set escalation contacts. HyperAgent keeps all custody trustless yet finally gives you the intelligence layer Hyperliquid traders have been requesting.

Continue

Ready to inspect the logs or launch your own HyperSniper session? Book a live walkthrough with our desk.

Cognitive Agents vs Legacy Bots on Hyperliquid | HyperAgent Insights | HyperAgent - Institutional Algo Execution