$17 Million Sell Orders: Who's Buying? On one hand, approximately $17 million in sell orders were cancelled; on the other hand, approximately $425,000 in buy orders were completed. The amounts differed by a factor of 40. A recent Bloomberg report revealed that Solidus Labs tracked two Hyperliquid accounts that submitted over $170 million in unusual orders between March 8th and 10th, estimating a three-day profit of approximately $119,000, primarily involving Brent crude perpetual contracts. These accounts repeatedly placed large orders on one side of the order book, then cancelled them, while simultaneously completing trades on the other side. The $17 million sell order and $425,000 buy order on March 9th is one such example. This behavior has raised suspicions of spoofing, which involves creating an impression of supply and demand through orders lacking genuine intent to execute, thus influencing other traders' judgments. So, just how crazy was the crude oil market at that time? I checked Hyperliquid's historical data. On March 8th, the on-chain Brent crude oil contract reached a high of $110 and a low of approximately $95.59, with a trading volume of approximately 365,400 barrels equivalent and about 24,400 transactions. By March 9th, the trading volume had expanded to approximately 2,848,400 barrels equivalent, with about 121,800 transactions. Within a single day, the trading volume increased by approximately 7.8 times, the number of transactions increased by approximately 5 times, and the price also experienced dramatic fluctuations. At UTC time, it touched $117.58 in the early morning, then fell to $81.424 in the afternoon, a drop of approximately 30.75% from the high to the subsequent low. On March 10th, the price hit a low of $80.20 again. This data paints a picture of the environment in which the relevant accounts traded: wildly volatile markets, a rapid increase in participants, and every sudden large buy or sell order could be interpreted as a new supply and demand signal. Seeing huge sell orders, some might assume the upside potential is being suppressed and choose to reduce their positions or sell prematurely. But what if the account displaying the sell order was actually buying on the other side? The direction it posted might be completely opposite to the direction it actually executed, which is the point of the 30:1 figure mentioned in the report. Within the investigation window, the amount of cancelled orders was approximately 30 times the actual transaction amount in the opposite direction. In other words, for every $1 of reverse trading, approximately $30 of orders were cancelled. This ratio measures the difference in value between the two types of behavior. The 40-fold difference in the single case on March 9th makes this contrast even more visceral. The $170 million corresponds to the nominal size of the abnormal orders submitted, while $119,000 corresponds to the investigators' estimated trading profit. To understand this data, we need to continue examining: when did the large orders appear, on which side did the actual transactions occur, and when did the large orders disappear? Currently, the publicly available materials still suggest suspected spoofing; complete account addresses and individual order details have not yet been disclosed. However, putting orders, transactions, and price changes together raises a more specific question than "Are there whales?" Are the large orders on the order book providing liquidity or influencing other people's orders? A screenshot can tell us how much money is pending at a given moment, but continuous transaction records tell us whether that money was ultimately executed. While we're staring at the sell wall to judge the market, perhaps on the other side, someone is waiting to take our shares. Hyperliquid Crude Oil On-Chain Data