feat(hl-frontends): refresh findings/FAQ with v2 bangers

benchmarks/hyperliquid-frontends.yml

@@ -79,11 +79,12 @@ methodology:
   - "Methodology versioning. Any change (registry additions, formula tweaks, exclusion thresholds, window sizes) ships as a public PR with a 14-day comment window before activation. Major changes run a 30-day shadow period publishing old and new metric series in parallel."
 
 findings:
-  - "{{best_name}} currently charges {{best_p50}} effective on the last 24 hours of attributed Hyperliquid flow. That is the most aligned frontend in the {{count}}-builder set we track. Lower is better here: 100 bps is the on-chain cap, 0 bps means the frontend is fully waiving its builder rebate."
-  - "{{name:phantom-perps}} sits at {{p50:phantom-perps}}. Phantom routes the largest share of attributed Hyperliquid volume but the fee column tells you what its users actually pay on top of HL's base schedule, which is the number that matters for choosing a frontend."
-  - "{{name:axiom}} reports {{p50:axiom}}. Axiom expanded from Solana to Hyperliquid in 2025 and runs a transparent flat fee model, a useful counterpoint to frontends that promote fee-free windows."
-  - "{{worst_name}} extracts {{worst_p50}} from its users on the same window. The gap between {{best_name}} and {{worst_name}} is the operational signal traders should weigh against the UX advantages each frontend ships with."
-  - "Fee discipline (the secondary p90 column, 30-day stddev) flags frontends running promotional cycles. A builder with a low 24h fee but a high stddev is in a fee-free phase and will normalize; one with both low is what alignment looks like."
+  - "Effective fee spread is 10x across the cohort. Insilico and Axiom both clock 1.00 bps on the last 24h of attributed flow, the cheapest transparent flat in the set. MetaMask sits at 10.00 bps, the practical on-chain cap most frontends respect, making it the most extractive currently tracked. Phantom Perps lands at 5.22, in line with the wallet-integrated tier."
+  - "Fee alone is half the story. DefiApp executes tightest at 1.90 bps price deviation despite charging 5.02 bps in builder fee. Dexari deviates 25.83 bps, 13x the cohort median of about 3 bps, on top of its 8.91 bps fee. A user paying Dexari to route their flow is paying twice: once at the fee line, once at the fill price."
+  - "Volume and user-cost are uncorrelated. Phantom Perps routes 19.4M USD in 24h at 5.22 bps. Insilico routes 7.9M USD at 1.00 bps. MetaMask routes 5M USD at 10 bps. The leaderboard most HL dashboards publish (volume share) ranks Phantom first; the leaderboard users actually care about (what each routed dollar pays) ranks Insilico and Axiom on top."
+  - "Two outage signals are currently firing. Dexari's last attributed fill is 19 minutes stale against a cohort baseline under 1 minute. Okto has zero fills in 24h, fully inactive. The sub-minute hl-node freshness lets the bench distinguish 'no flow yet today' from 'frontend down', a gap the daily CSV pipeline could not close."
+  - "Taker share separates aggressive UIs from pro terminals. pvp.trade fills 100% taker, Phantom 99.4%, MetaMask 97.9% — instant-execution wallets that cross the spread by default. Insilico sits at 80.6%, the most maker-heavy in the cohort, consistent with its workstation positioning where users place resting limit orders rather than market-buying."
+  - "Asset concentration reveals routing strategy. Phantom is 51% BTC-weighted (9.9M of 19.4M USD in 24h on BTC alone). DefiApp is the only frontend with HYPE as its #1 asset. Dexari and MetaMask both surface HIP-3 perps in their top-3 (xyz:TSLA, xyz:CL crude) — a feature that does not exist on the older Hyperliquid frontends, useful for traders looking for stock-perps exposure."
 
 faq:
   - q: "Why does OpenChainBench not show Hyperliquid volume share?"
@@ -102,6 +103,10 @@ faq:
     a: "No. The native HL UI doesn't set a builder code, so its orders are not user-attributable by this method. Native HL's performance is covered separately by `/benchmarks/aggregator-head-lag` (data-feed latency) and the operational metrics Hyperliquid publishes themselves. This bench is specifically about third-party frontends that opt into the builder-code attribution system."
   - q: "Can a frontend game the bench by routing wash trades?"
     a: "Yes, the bench measures what the chain records. A frontend running wash volume to drive its own fee revenue (or to suppress its effective fee via 0-fee internal flow) shows up exactly as it appears on-chain. Mitigation is structural: the user-count column flags frontends with anomalously low unique-user counts relative to volume (a wash-heavy frontend has high $/user efficiency and low user count). A v1.1 methodology PR will add a sybil-cluster heuristic for repeat-counterparty fills."
+  - q: "What is price deviation and why publish it alongside the fee?"
+    a: "Per-fill basis-point gap between executed price and the most recent fill price on the same asset, averaged across the 24h window. Cleanest proxy for execution quality from a frontend that does not publish slippage stats. A frontend can charge a low builder fee and still cost users more if its routing fills wide of the recent print. Fee plus deviation is closer to true user cost than either alone."
+  - q: "What does the last-fill-age outage signal actually measure?"
+    a: "Seconds since the most recent attributed fill for that builder. The cohort baseline runs under one minute during active hours, so above a few minutes is a real anomaly. Catches two failure modes: a frontend whose routing pipeline is down (no new fills even when users try to trade), and a frontend that has quietly stopped operating but still has its builder code in circulation. Both were invisible on volume dashboards where zero volume reads as zero, not as broken."
 
 source: https://github.com/OpenChainBench/OpenChainBench/tree/main/harnesses/hyperliquid-frontends