What Sonar is (and is not)
Sonar is an ETF-flow-aware agentic hedge fund built for the SoSoValue Buildathon. An AI agent reads crypto ETF flows and structured news once per day, writes a research thesis where every number is cited, and rebalances an index book priced off on-chain composition, with live perp hedges behind a risk engine. Everything it does is published: the reasoning, the trades, the failures, and the P&L.
- 1. Ingest. ETF net flows and categorized news from SoSoValue; on-chain index composition from Base via multicall.
- 2. Reason. The model writes a dated thesis with inline citations. The validator rejects any numeric claim without a source.
- 3. Gate. The macro calendar and the portfolio guards (drawdown, VaR, correlation) can de-risk the cycle before a single order is sized. The risk gate then caps every order that reaches the venue: dust floor, per-order, per-cycle, and position caps.
- 4. Execute. SSI rebalance legs are simulated against the book; perp hedges go to SoDEX as EIP-712 signed orders. On testnet they fire; on mainnet the cycle records them for human approval and submits nothing. A second, rules-based delta-neutral strategy runs its own book beside the directional one (on testnet and paper; it needs both legs to execute together, so it stands down on mainnet).
- 5. Publish. Thesis, fills, NAV snapshots, risk state, and the forward tests of every AI-designed index proposal land on this dashboard and the public API and MCP tools.
Every numeric claim in a thesis must carry an inline [ref:id] citation resolving to a signal in the same thesis. Unsourced numbers are rejected before anything trades.
Four layers sit between a decision and the venue: a dust floor, a per-order cap, a per-cycle cap, and position caps bounding the book itself. The gate downsizes or blocks; it never trusts the model's sizing. It governs orders that reach the exchange, so the simulated SSI index legs, which move no money, are sized against the book instead.
A high-impact macro event (CPI, FOMC) inside the lookahead window de-risks the cycle before it happens: caps scale down and weights tilt toward the stable reference.
Drawdown, one-cycle VaR, and average index correlation each carry an enforced cap. Breach any and the cycle de-risks: caps scale down, weights tilt to the stable reference. On top of the calendar-triggered breaker.
A user signs a scoped, expiring, revocable EIP-712 grant (markets + max notional). When enforcement is enabled, the executor checks it before every order. It is opt-in and off for the autonomous cron by default, so the demo runs without it. App-level enforcement, honestly labeled.
On mainnet the daily cycle cannot submit an order. It records the risk-capped order and stops; only an authenticated approval places it. The operator approves the number that reaches the wire, not the model's request.
Failed runs stay in the log next to successful ones. The track record includes the no-trade days. Honesty is the moat, not a disclaimer.
This is paper plus SoDEX testnet execution during the buildathon, not a live-money track record. No deposits are accepted; nothing here is investment advice. Delegation is an app-layer control (the venue does not verify grants) and is opt-in, off by default for the autonomous cron; index proposals are priced design artifacts, not on-chain products. The SSI legs are simulated in every mode: Sonar reads each index composition on-chain and prices it live, but it does not mint or burn, so the index book is an accounting of what those weights would do.
The gated mainnet path has been exercised once against the live SoDEX venue: a human-approved BTC-PERP long filled at $62,802 and was closed reduce-only minutes later, a round trip costing about a cent on a $12 balance. The order could not reach the venue until a person approved it. That is one verification fill with symbolic capital, not a live-money track record; the fund runs on testnet. On-chain grant enforcement, SSI index creation, and the Mirror Protocol bridge remain designs with no implementation behind them.
The credibility claim is narrower and stronger: every number on this site traces to a cited thesis, a logged run, or a signed venue fill, and the failures are published next to the wins.