Begin with the position, not the machinery.
The demo introduces a position and a maximum spend before explaining conditional hedging. This makes the trade-off visible: the user is planning protection, not being promised that risk disappears.
Risk infrastructure · Nuvixes
Downrail
PrototypeConditional hedging with explicit limits, execution evidence, and clear failure states.
Why this exists
Keeping an asset should not mean ignoring its downside.
The starting point is a person who wants to keep their ETH but wants a boundary around a possible loss. Downrail turns that tension into a planning experience: exposure, horizon, budget, and an explicit review before signing.
A review needs to explain the calls.
The planner connects eligible markets to an unsigned order review. Decoded calls, allowances, and costs make the proposed action inspectable before a wallet is asked to sign.
The awkward states became part of the work.
September changes addressed review reuse, rollover timing, claim verification, and inventory isolation. These are the moments after the first attractive screen—when an old review or an ambiguous claim can undermine the entire experience.
Build journal
The turns
along the way.
Recorded milestones from the build. Dates describe these events, not the entire project history.
Edge cases tightened
Build history records fixes for review reuse, rollover timing, claim verification, and inventory isolation.
Planner hardened
The planner hardening and UX release was shipped, followed by submission-documentation updates on September 11.
Where it stands
What works today.
A published conditional-hedging prototype. Demo amounts and recorded execution examples describe the demonstrated flow, not guaranteed protection or investment outcomes.
The next chapter
What comes next.
Keep tightening failure states, execution review, and the evidence available after an action.
Based on the original Downrail demo and September 7–11 repository history.
Continue exploringScholarship Scout