RyVen

I’VE BEEN CURIOUS ABOUT ONE THING LATELY CAN I ACTUALLY BUILD AND RUN A TRADING STRATEGY WITHOUT WRITING THE CODE MYSELF? I decided to test it for myself with @nabupro I wanted something simple enough to understand, but structured enough to actually run. I ended up building an RSI-based momentum strategy for BTC and took it from configuration to paper deployment. Here’s how I did it . 》DEPLOYMENT DAY I started with the idea of using RSI to identify changes in BTC momentum, then built the strategy around that instead of trying to stack multiple indicators together. The strategy runs on BTC/USDC perpetuals on Hyperliquid using 15-minute bars and RSI(14). The final setup was: • $20 position notional • 2× cross leverage • Signal-based exits • Limit IOC execution • Intraday, ongoing strategy The trading logic is based on RSI crossing the 50 level. For the long side, a move across 50 triggers the long logic. For the short side, the opposite crossing triggers the short logic. A closing cross can also become the opening signal for the opposite side, so the strategy can reverse rather than simply stop trading. I kept the position size small and the leverage at 2× because I wanted to understand how the strategy behaved before worrying about scaling it. The setup wasn't completely straightforward. I had to work through the strategy configuration, check the position and risk settings, and make sure the execution and exit logic agreed with each other before deployment. After testing the configuration, I deployed it to paper trading on October 21. That was the point where the strategy stopped being just a set of rules on a screen and started reacting to market data. 》WHAT HAPPENED AFTERWARD The strategy kept running and started opening and closing simulated BTC positions based on the RSI signals. I went back through the Activity and Trade History pages to see what it was actually doing instead of only looking at the headline PnL. There were both winning and losing trades. The strategy also moved between LONG and SHORT positions as the RSI conditions changed. That gave me a better idea of how a simple rule-based system behaves when the market keeps changing direction. One thing I learned quickly is that building the rules is only the first part. You also need to understand how the strategy handles position sizing, leverage, exits, execution and reversals when those rules meet live market conditions. 》TODAY The strategy is still Active and running in Paper mode. At the latest check, it was holding a simulated SHORT BTC position: Entry: $80,212.00 Position value: $19.25 Margin: $9.63 Leverage: 2× Current total PnL: +$0.36 Realized PnL: +$0.36 Realized return: +1.78% The strategy has recorded 59 trades, with a 21% win rate on the current dashboard view. The important part is that I’m not taking those numbers as proof that the strategy is profitable long-term. The current page shows these figures, but they may change while the strategy continues running. It’s still a small experiment with limited data. What I wanted to prove to myself was simpler. I could take an idea, turn it into explicit trading rules, test those rules, deploy the strategy, and then monitor how it behaves without manually writing the trading logic. And now I’m watching it run. One thing I should be upfront about, the contest rules require a strategy running on a live Hyperliquid or Binance account, and paper trading doesn't meet that requirement. Mine is currently running in paper mode. I know that may make me ineligible, but I still wanted to share the process, document what I've built, and show what I've learned from running it. The goal was to push myself to build something, test it, and keep learning. That's what I'm taking away from this experience, regardless of the outcome. Would you build your first strategy from a template, from chat, or directly in the Lab? Code RTFI-S2VG → nabu.pro/promo/route2fi or "NABU-C742"

Gm CT One last morning to make this month count. Whatever you didn't achieve, don't carry the disappointment into a new month. Take the lessons, keep the faith and keep building. Let's make today count

Lazarus Group, Binance, ETH, on-chain messages… Someone really sent the hacker an on-chain message, called him “Your Excellency” and ended it with a Bible verse. Who does these things?

$6.3B LOST IN ONE EVENING The biggest crypto hack in history. On October 29th, Binance reportedly lost around $6.3 billion in a single evening. That's more than four times the Bybit hack from last year. Nobody broke the blockchain. Every transaction was executed on-chain. Binance keeps part of its funds in what's known as hot wallets. These wallets are connected to the internet, allowing users to withdraw funds quickly. One of the biggest is called Binance 14. The day before the attack, a newly created wallet received funds through Tornado Cash, a crypto mixer designed to obscure the origin of funds. This wallet would later serve as the attacker's operator wallet. Around 4 PM, the attacker deployed a smart contract. Its purpose was simple: take everything out of a targeted wallet and send it to the attacker. At 8:20 PM UTC, the attacker initiated a single transaction containing 50 authorizations using Ethereum's relatively new feature, EIP-7702. This feature allows a normal Ethereum wallet to delegate execution to a smart contract. Here's where things get interesting. Each authorization only works for a specific transaction number, known as a nonce. Binance 14 was actively processing transactions, so the attacker couldn't predict its exact nonce. Rather The attacker Submitted 50 different authorizations in a row. 49 failed. 1 matched. Just like that, Binance 14 was pointing to the attacker's malicious contract. Three and a half minutes later, the attacker called the contract's sweep function. The result? • 167,000 ETH transferred. • Over $1.6 billion in USDT. • 63 different tokens drained in total. All from a single transaction. Then, 24 seconds later, something even stranger happened. Another Binance hot wallet, Binance 16, sent approximately 28,000 ETH directly to the attacker. This wasn't a sweep operation. The transaction came directly from Binance's own wallet with a valid signature. At 8:41 PM UTC, the attacker used the compromised wallet again. Another $780 million in USDC left Binance's hot wallet 34. And the attack wasn't limited to Ethereum. Other affected networks included • Bitcoin • Tron • Solana • Arbitrum • Avalanche TRM Labs identified 10 affected blockchain networks in total. Binance estimated the overall damage at approximately $6.3 billion. So,how could the attacker authorize all these transactions? Binance's preliminary explanation was that a DevOps engineer's laptop had been compromised. From there, the attacker allegedly gained access to an internal service and pushed unauthorized withdrawals through the system. Binance stated that no private keys were leaked. Security firm Blockade described the incident as key misuse, suggesting that the signing infrastructure itself was manipulated into approving malicious transactions. Then came the race to freeze the stolen funds. • Tether froze $1.5B USDT • Circle froze $800m USDC • ZachXBT tracked over $2.8 billion in frozen funds. But ETH and Bitcoin are different. They cannot simply be frozen by a central issuer. The attacker began dumping tokens, selling millions of dollars' worth every minute. Arkham reportedly identified approximately $2.9 billion in assets that could still be moved. The market reacted almost immediately. Bitcoin dropped below $79,000, while more than $600 million in long positions were liquidated within an hour. So, who was behind the attack? TRM Labs attributed the incident to North Korea's TraderTraitor group with high confidence. Meanwhile, ZachXBT reportedly discovered that funds stolen in this incident and the Bitget hack eventually reached the same address after passing through THORChain. Crypto Twitter also came up with its own theories. Some even suggested Binance staged the entire incident. Is wallet infrastructure now one of the biggest security risks in crypto ? DROP YOUR ANSWERS IN THE COMMENTS Credit to @germanarc1 for the original investigation and breakdown

If you are into Memecoin. This is for you

Let's Make today count. A win is a Win.

Binance and Bybit Got hacked Stay SAFU

GM builders who’s going to put me on this week? I need new projects to explore, tools to test, protocols to research and opportunities to get into. Drop your best recommendations in the replies. No gatekeeping abeg. Ia peace. – at Sagwari, Nigeria

Join here – at Sagwari, Nigeria

To every writer in the space: Writing alone may no longer guarantee you a win in hackathons/bounties. At least add a video. Because apparently, when the rules say “X thread or video,” you might still end up competing in a video-only contest. And this isn't just about one bounty. To projects listing bounties and contests: please be honest and transparent about your entry requirements. If you want videos, say videos. If you want threads, say threads. If both are accepted, then both should be properly considered. Don't have people spend hours researching, writing, editing and promoting their entries based on one set of rules, only for the judging to look like a different standard was used. And please, don't make requirements look optional when they aren't, or treat them as mandatory only when convenient. The complaints around this particular bounty are what made me think about it: Some participants submitted threads because threads were explicitly allowed. Some submitted both thread + video. Yet the final results appeared to heavily favor video creators, while people also questioned the engagement and whether some stated requirements were followed by winners. Maybe there are explanations for some of these things. But that's exactly why transparency matters. If there are specific things you're looking for, tell creators before they enter. Don't make us guess the rules after the winners are announced. Writers, creators and researchers are putting real time into these bounties. Just tell us what you're actually judging. – at Sagwari, Nigeria