larry参与话题 1消息总数 5

larry 2026-06-25 10:59:47 ↗ Hyperliquid

Hi team, I'm encountering a small but consistent deduction when bridging from Core Spot to EVM since switching to unified account mode. **Setup:** - Unified account mode (abstraction = 2) - Sending USDC via CoreWriter SEND_ASSET action (action 13) from Core Spot to EVM **Observation:** Every sendAsset transaction deducts ~126,000 Core wei (~0.00126 USDC) more than the specified amount from the Core Spot balance. For example: - Core Spot balance: 99,873,400 Core wei (0.998734 USDC) - Submitted sendAsset of 99,000,000 Core wei (0.99 USDC) - Expected remaining: 873,400 Core wei - Actual remaining: 747,100 Core wei - **Lost: 126,300 Core wei** This happens consistently across multiple transactions at roughly the same magnitude (~126k Core wei per sendAsset). It did NOT occur before switching to unified account mode. **Question:** Is this an expected protocol fee/dust for sendAsset under unified account mode? If so, what is the exact fee structure? I couldn't find documentation about this deduction. **Transactions for reference:** - sendAsset: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/explorer/tx/0xec90d301cdf906b3ebf7a767d86364fdd8772cf72c338a253ab06a4c490ff170 - Core Spot balance pre: 99,873,400 wei → post: 747,100 wei Thanks!

Hi team, I'm encountering a small but consistent deduction when bridging from Core Spot to EVM since switching to unified account mode. **Setup:** - Unified account mode (abstraction = 2) - Sending USDC via CoreWriter SEND_ASSET action (action 13) from Core Spot to EVM **Observation:** Every sendAsset transaction deducts ~126,000 Core wei (~0.00126 USDC) more than the specified amount from the Core Spot balance. For example: - Core Spot balance: 99,873,400 Core wei (0.998734 USDC) - Submitted sendAsset of 99,000,000 Core wei (0.99 USDC) - Expected remaining: 873,400 Core wei - Actual remaining: 747,100 Core wei - **Lost: 126,300 Core wei** This happens consistently across multiple transactions at roughly the same magnitude (~126k Core wei per sendAsset). It did NOT occur before switching to unified account mode. **Question:** Is this an expected protocol fee/dust for sendAsset under unified account mode? If so, what is the exact fee structure? I couldn't find documentation about this deduction. **Transactions for reference:** - sendAsset: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/explorer/tx/0xec90d301cdf906b3ebf7a767d86364fdd8772cf72c338a253ab06a4c490ff170 - Core Spot balance pre: 99,873,400 wei → post: 747,100 wei Thanks!

larry 2026-06-22 10:19:51 ↗ Hyperliquid

Hi <@393805126294437889> We’re hitting an issue where all orders sent from our Adapter contract via hyper-evm-lib are silently dropped by HyperCore (0 open orders / 0 fills, no errors). Call flow: EOA → Allocator → Adapter → CoreWriter.sendRawAction CoreWriter msg.sender = Adapter 0x2F4E8B1452B4b1950af10F0aE90502937fb89F74 with 89.2 USDC balance; caller EOA has no perp funds Tested BTC/SOL/HYPE GTC/IOC/spot orders, all failed the same way We suspect missing SET_ABSTRACTION activation for contract accounts. Could you clarify: Is SET_ABSTRACTION required for HyperEVM contracts to place orders via CoreWriter? Who is eligible to call SET_ABSTRACTION (contract self vs deployer EOA)? Do we need an agent EOA for signing? Could you share a minimal initialization code snippet? Test tx: 0x99a2e7ffabd3f7c2e18db9c87ded71fd39e225d511b4e0af23afd0c3b0e7ed00 Appreciate your help!

Hi <@393805126294437889> We’re hitting an issue where all orders sent from our Adapter contract via hyper-evm-lib are silently dropped by HyperCore (0 open orders / 0 fills, no errors). Call flow: EOA → Allocator → Adapter → CoreWriter.sendRawAction CoreWriter msg.sender = Adapter 0x2F4E8B1452B4b1950af10F0aE90502937fb89F74 with 89.2 USDC balance; caller EOA has no perp funds Tested BTC/SOL/HYPE GTC/IOC/spot orders, all failed the same way We suspect missing SET_ABSTRACTION activation for contract accounts. Could you clarify: Is SET_ABSTRACTION required for HyperEVM contracts to place orders via CoreWriter? Who is eligible to call SET_ABSTRACTION (contract self vs deployer EOA)? Do we need an agent EOA for signing? Could you share a minimal initialization code snippet? Test tx: 0x99a2e7ffabd3f7c2e18db9c87ded71fd39e225d511b4e0af23afd0c3b0e7ed00 Appreciate your help!

larry 2026-06-18 17:03:22 ↗ Hyperliquid 通过CoreWriter合约下单未被HyperCore处理问题

okey I will check the doc

okey I will check the doc

larry 2026-06-18 01:45:11 ↗ Hyperliquid 通过CoreWriter合约下单未被HyperCore处理问题

All spot and perp orders were successfully executed on the EVM, but none were successfully placed in HyperCore. The contract passes local testing. Is the function for placing orders with mainnet contracts supported? Or is there a toggle somewhere, such as the setAbstraction configuration?

All spot and perp orders were successfully executed on the EVM, but none were successfully placed in HyperCore. The contract passes local testing. Is the function for placing orders with mainnet contracts supported? Or is there a toggle somewhere, such as the setAbstraction configuration?

larry 2026-06-18 01:13:51 ↗ Hyperliquid 通过CoreWriter合约下单未被HyperCore处理问题

Hi, I'm building a smart contract that places perp limit orders via CoreWriter.placeLimitOrder on mainnet. EVM tx succeeds and CoreWriter emits the correct log (asset=0, isBuy=true, limitPx= 65,800,000,000, sz=1,670,000,000, tif=2/GTC), but HyperCore never processes it — openOrders is always empty, no fills, no positions.

Hi, I'm building a smart contract that places perp limit orders via CoreWriter.placeLimitOrder on mainnet. EVM tx succeeds and CoreWriter emits the correct log (asset=0, isBuy=true, limitPx= 65,800,000,000, sz=1,670,000,000, tif=2/GTC), but HyperCore never processes it — openOrders is always empty, no fills, no positions.