He argued it mainly compares different types of traders, with less-informed traders more likely to use visible TWAPs. "The segregation of flow" may explain the better prices, he said, rather than transparency itself.
Tushar Jain, co-founder of crypto investment firm Multicoin Capital, made a similar point, saying in an X post that traders with real information wouldn't announce a large order before executing it.
"Sharp traders hide because hiding works," Jain wrote, adding that the results show that separating retail and other uninformed flow can help execution, not that public orders are inherently better.
Traders using Hyperliquid's publicly visible order-splitting tool faced about nine basis points less temporary price impact than comparable unannounced trading programs, researchers found, suggesting that revealing a large order can attract liquidity instead of front-runners.
- Davide Barone and Fabrizio Lillo, researchers at Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa, examined all 201 perpetual-futures markets on Hyperliquid, between July 28, 2025, and March 23, 2026.
- Their working paper, published on June 14 and not yet peer-reviewed, analyzed more than 640 million completed trades representing approximately $1.9 trillion in volume.
Visible orders attracted liquidity
The study focused on time-weighted average price orders, known as TWAP orders, which divide a large order into smaller trades executed at regular intervals.
Hyperliquid publicly reveals a native TWAP order's direction, total size and planned duration when it begins. The researchers compared about 465,000 such orders with 4.3 million reconstructed metaorders, unannounced trading programs composed of repeated trades from the same wallet.
- After accounting for order size, duration, volatility and other factors, visible orders produced about 8.9 basis points less temporary price impact.
- They also left approximately five basis points less lasting price movement after completion.
Market makers, traders that provide buy and sell orders, appeared to add liquidity where it was needed to absorb the announced trade. The paper said visible execution attracted "liquidity provision rather than predatory front-running."
Hyperliquid co-founder Jeff Yan noted in an X post that the findings addressed a question he had considered since before building the exchange.
In physics,… https://t.co/Mm0lnupEjV— jeff.hl (@chameleon_jeff) August 19, 2026
Yan said he had long argued that "transparent trading ought to improve execution for non-toxic flow," referring to orders that are not based on private information.
He also claimed transparency could improve execution compared with private venues, although the study examined only activity on Hyperliquid.
The evidence doesn't prove cause
The authors cautioned that the comparison was "not a randomized comparison of the same trader."
About 86% of orders came from wallets that used only one method, meaning different participants may have chosen visible and unannounced execution for different reasons.
The findings may also be specific to Hyperliquid, where wallet activity is public.