James Wynn Goes Long on PEPE Hours After Losing $100M on Leveraged Bitcoin Bet
'James Wynn,' the closely-watched trader, has now placed a $12 million worth of long bet on PEPE just hours after losing over $100 million in bitcoin BTC long positions.
Wynn, known for placing billion-dollar bets on the onchain trading platform Hyperliquid, opened a new 10x leveraged long worth more than $12 million on the memecoin PEPE, Hyperdash data shows.
Wynn now holds 934 million PEPE tokens valued at approximately $12.1 million. His entry price of $0.0129 has already netted him an unrealized gain of 10.66%—a small but notable pivot after last week's disastrous Bitcoin trade.
Wynn's bitcoin losses are the stuff of crypto legend. Earlier in the week, he had built a record-setting $1.25 billion notional long position at an average price of $108,243, only to see it collapse as bitcoin's dipped below $105,000 after U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff announcement on EU exports.
Multiple liquidations — including a 527 BTC position worth over $55 million and a 421 BTC position worth nearly $44 million — wiped out more than $100 million of Wynn's holdings over the past days.
As such, the latest move into PEPE has got traders wondering if Wynn is a real person with a gambling addiction — or an account funded to drum up attention to Hyperliquid.
Either way, the money is real and the week-long saga has proven Hyperliquid's capability to handle billions of dollars in a single trader wholly using smart contracts and its native blockchain.
The hype has turned out real for Hyperliquid's own HYPE, with the token up 20% in the past two weeks amid the recent attention to the platform.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Using Russian assets for Ukraine aid needs 'closer look,' German official says
A German official has called on the European Union to take a "closer look" at the issue of frozen Russian assets and using them to support Ukraine, stressing the need to take a harder stance against the Kremlin. Thorsten Frei, Head of the German Chancellery, stated in an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung on May 31 that the EU should "take a much closer look at the issue of Russian state funds than we have so far." He also urged the EU to take a more assertive position against Moscow, adding that "we must not allow the game that Russia is playing with us to go unchallenged." The question of frozen Russian assets, and what to do with them, has been discussed by the EU and other Western countries since the start of the full-scale invasion. Recently, the Group of Seven – including Germany – pledged to keep Russian assets frozen until the end of the war. Frei's comments suggest that Germany's new Chancellor Friedrich Merz may be open to the idea of seizing the approximately €200 billion ($227 billion) in Russian state assets in the EU. Frei also mentioned the 18th package of EU sanctions currently under preparation, citing them as an example of tougher measures against Russia. According to Frei, the upcoming sanctions are a response to Russian President Vladimir Putin's refusal to comply with demands for a ceasefire. "Measures are being prepared that are tougher than before, and which some European states have therefore shied away from so far," Frei said, stressing that the sanctions package will have "far-reaching punitive measures." Frei added that the sanctions package will target Russia's shadow fleet, energy sector, financial sector, and Nord Stream pipelines. "If you want to achieve a ceasefire by peaceful means, then your tools are limited," Frei said. "That is why I am very much in favor of using the tools at your disposal." Read also: Senate to 'start moving' Russia sanctions bill next week, Graham says We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Trump always chickens out': Taco jibe ruffles president's feathers
Trump Always Chickens Out – or Taco for short. Investors like narratives to explain the financial world, and they appear to have seized on this one: whenever Donald Trump faces a market backlash, he will back down. It would be fair to say the US president did not take kindly to the suggestion that he was being a 'chicken' when asked by a reporter at the White House about the term that is gaining traction on Wall Street. 'Oh isn't that nice – 'I chicken out.' I've never heard that,' Trump mused on Wednesday in response to the reporter's question on the so-called Taco trade. He then launched into extended comments on how high the tariffs he imposed on China were, and how he had 'helped' China by cutting them. 'But don't ever say what you said,' he added to the reporter. 'That's a nasty question.' Apparently riled, he later returned to the theme, insisting that he was no chicken, and that often people accused him of being too tough. But recurrent retreats by Trump have become the basis for stock markets rebounding after falls, even as the US president has raised tariffs to their highest level in more than a century. The S&P 500, the US stock market benchmark, has gained about 1% during 2025, despite a deep slump in April as Trump announced 'liberation day' tariffs on trade with most countries in the world. The stock market rise appears to have been aided by the Taco trade narrative: that market turmoil will correct the president's course and allow companies to keep on making strong profits. That belief will strengthen if courts uphold Wednesday night's ruling by New York's court of international trade that Trump's tariffs have been imposed illegally. When the Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong coined the Taco acronym on 2 May, it was a pithy observation of market reaction to Trump's chaotic policymaking. However, less than a month on, one question is whether being accused of being 'chicken' will needle the president to take a harder line with trading partners. On some fronts – notably on transporting people to El Salvador without due process – the Trump administration has indeed defied barrages of criticism and several court orders. Yet on financial markets, the pattern is clear of a harsh initial position followed by a sizeable retreat. The partial climbdowns have often followed close behind slumping bond prices – increasing US government borrowing costs – a dynamic that could expose the world's largest economy if left unchecked. The liberation day tariff announcement was followed by a 90-day pause. Trump said he would raise EU tariffs to 50%, before delaying that until 9 July. He ratcheted up levies to a punitive 145% on China, before dropping them to 30% during a 90-day pause. And he toyed with forcing out the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, only to backtrack quickly once investor displeasure became clear. However, the market optimism has not matched economic forecasts, which suggest that the White House's actions are still historically significant. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why has a US court blocked Donald Trump's tariffs – and can he get round it?
Donald Trump is facing the biggest challenge yet to his trade policies after a US federal court ruled that his 'liberation day' tariff plan is illegal. In the latest twist in the US president's erratic global trade war, the ruling could unpick border taxes announced early last month. However, the White House has filed a notice of appeal, and tariffs will stay in place as the case progresses through the courts. The US Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled that Trump's use of a sweeping presidential power – the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) – to justify his 2 April tariffs, as well as separate levies imposed on imports from Mexico, Canada and China, was wrong. Legal complaints about the tariffs had been lodged with the court by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center campaign group on behalf of small US businesses, as well as a dozen US states; including Oregon, Arizona and New York. IEEPA is a 1977 act allowing the president to regulate commerce during a national emergency, without the need to go through Congress, and builds on the Trading With the Enemy Act introduced during the first world war. However, the three-judge court panel ruled that the economic concerns cited by the White House to justify the tariff plans do not meet the required test of being 'unusual and extraordinary threats'. The judges had been nominated to the court by three presidents: Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama and Trump himself. Trump used IEEPA as the basis for his announcement on 2 April of 10% worldwide tariff and country-specific border taxes at higher levels – since paused for 90 days to allow for trade talks – as well as for fentanyl-related tariffs imposed on Canada, Mexico and China. Other targeted tariffs announced by Trump, on steel, aluminium and cars, were imposed under a separate law – section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act – and therefore remain in place. Washington's appeal will presumably go all the way to the supreme court if necessary. Given that the highest legal authority in the US recently ruled in favour of the president in a case involving the dismissal of a senior labour official – analysts are questioning whether the CIT decision could also be overturned. In the short-term, the judgment will add an extra layer of uncertainty to an already volatile trade situation. Investors have broadly cheered the ruling as a signal that Washington's tariff policies could be curbed, limiting the hit to global trade and the US economy. Still, additional uncertainty will further dent investor and business confidence. Washington has dialled up and down tariff threats as a tool in trade talks. A powerful court ruling against the president could undermine his push to strike maximum concessions, at a crunch moment in talks with China, Japan, the EU and India. On Tuesday, Trump had signalled progress with the EU, having a week earlier threatened a 50% tariff on imports from the 27-nation bloc from 1 June, before postponing the plan two days later, to 9 July. Brussels could now, however, scent weakness in the White House approach. A UK spokesperson said that despite the court ruling, the government would press on with negotiations to conclude the trade deal it sealed on 8 May – the first after Trump's 'reciprocal' tariffs were announced – as no legal text exists to bring into force the concessions Keir Starmer won. At a headline level the ruling is a devastating blow to Trump's economic agenda, by depriving the self-described 'tariff man' of his most powerful, and most favoured, policy tool. However, there are various legal routes for the president to pursue his cornerstone economic policy. These include section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and sections 301 and 338 of the Trade Act of 1930. Each grants the president powers to intervene on trade policy, albeit in an often slower and, in some instances, more limited way. 'It sounds like good news, but Trump has various other mechanisms to invoke tariffs or have leverage in trade negotiations. It's just the speed of their rollout will be weeks/months rather than immediately as he did with the IEEPA,' said Jordan Rochester, an analyst at the Japanese bank Nomura. Another major focus for investors will be the consequences for Washington's rising levels of federal borrowing and debt amid mounting concern in financial markets. Trump had been banking on additional revenues from tariffs to help offset some of his sweeping tax cuts announced last week in his One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The bill, passed last week by the lower house in Congress, could add $5tn (£3.7tn) to US debt levels.
