---
title: "Who Is Trading on HIP-3? The Data Stack Behind Arrakis's 175,703-Wallet Map"
description: "Inside the Arrakis HIP-3 study: seven markets, 175,703 wallets, 808M order events, and the order-level record credited for powering it."
canonical_url: "https://0xarchive.io/blog/who-is-trading-on-hip3-arrakis-data-stack"
markdown_url: "https://0xarchive.io/blog/who-is-trading-on-hip3-arrakis-data-stack.md"
route: "/blog/who-is-trading-on-hip3-arrakis-data-stack"
robots: "index, follow"
generated_from: "prerendered_html"
---

TreadFi routed $1.19B through 555 wallets, about $2.1M a wallet: a small number of large, coordinated accounts. Phantom routed $867M through 6,569 wallets, about $132K a wallet: the widest retail reach in Arrakis's HIP-3 study. Same rail, opposite crowd. The only way to tell them apart after the fact is order-level history with a wallet on every line, not a volume chart.

That distinction runs through the whole study. Market makers are 1.1% of wallets and 11.8% of the volume. Retail showed up as wallet breadth, not volume concentration: 28.4% of wallets, 12.8% of volume. Neither number comes from counting fills. Both come from tying every order to a wallet across three weeks and seven markets.

## A pattern that only shows up over time

The sharpest finding in the study came from watching a market do nothing. Stat arb bots largely disappeared on weekends. Their edge depended on cross-venue price dislocations against CME, and once CME closed, there was nothing left to arb against. A live snapshot can't show a strategy vanishing; it just shows whatever's trading right now. A three-week order-level record shows the absence, because the bots are still in the schema, just missing from the fills on Saturday.

![Market makers: 1.1% of wallets, 11.8% of the volume. Retail is the inverse.](https://api.0xarchive.io/cms-assets/2026/07/6fb2d221-391b-4177-b47e-c465b5e019e4.webp)

## What Arrakis built this on, and what we supplied

Arrakis published the study April 8, 2026, and credited 0xArchive and HyperTracker (by CoinMarketMan) for the data behind it. The window: seven builder markets, March 10 to 31, 2026, 808 million order lifecycle events. xyz_SILVER alone did $78.6B, more than the other three silver deployers combined. 209 wallets traded all four silver markets, a cohort that only exists in the data if the classification looks across markets on purpose.

Arrakis owns the labels and the interpretation. What came from 0xArchive is narrower and specific: every fill and every order, wallet-attributed, for the full three weeks, before the paper was written. [The benchmark](https://0xarchive.io/blog/hip3-wallet-classification-benchmark) tests whether that record holds up on a rerun.

`/wallets/classify` precomputes the same behavioral fields a taxonomy like this depends on: cancel rate, maker ratio, order-to-trade ratio, one row per wallet per day. Pull it twice for the same date and the wallet metrics match exactly; only the `request_id` in the response changes. [The benchmark](https://0xarchive.io/blog/hip3-wallet-classification-benchmark) covers the full method.

## Pull the same shape of record

```bash
# fills for xyz:TSLA, 2026-06-30 to 07-01 UTC, wallet on every row
curl "https://api.0xarchive.io/v1/hyperliquid/hip3/trades/xyz:TSLA?start=1782777600000&end=1782864000000" \
  -H "X-API-Key: $OXARCHIVE_API_KEY"
```

Every row carries `user_address`. Pair it with `/orders/{symbol}/history` for order-level state (placed, open, canceled) on the same wallet. Full history is on every plan, including Free; a query's time span is capped at 90 days, and the Arrakis window is 21 days, well inside that limit. Pulling this fill-level slice needs nothing beyond a free key and cursor pagination through the trades route; the order-state and wallet-classification steps above are the rest of the reconstruction.

## What the native API leaves out

None of this comes from Hyperliquid's own API at market scale. Its own docs cap `userFillsByTime` at the 10,000 most recent fills and `historicalOrders` at 2,000 most recent per user: enough for a live check on one wallet, not enough for a market-wide study. There's a raw S3 archive too, but it's L2 book snapshots only, updated roughly once a month with no guarantee of completeness, no order-level detail, and no wallet attribution at all. A study like this means reconstructing three weeks of market state by hand before the wallet work even starts. [The comparison](https://0xarchive.io/blog/0xarchive-vs-hyperliquid-native-hip3-orderflow) walks through where that gap actually costs a team time.

Pull the same slice of history yourself: [create a free account](https://0xarchive.io/signup?utm_source=blog&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=proof_network_hip3), or go deeper with the [HIP-3 REST reference](https://docs.0xarchive.io/rest-api/hip3).

## Sources

- [Arrakis: Who is trading on HIP-3? (original thread)](https://x.com/ArrakisFinance/status/2041893604550177205)
- [The full study, republished on our blog](https://0xarchive.io/blog/who-is-trading-on-hip-3)
- [0xArchive HIP-3 REST docs](https://docs.0xarchive.io/rest-api/hip3)