[#772] Simplify Reader holdings + portfolio boxes, add trade history

[realproject7]

Summary

• Holdings cards: 4-box grid → 2 boxes (Value with cost-basis % change, Balance). Removed PnL and First Traded boxes
• Trade history: Added HoldingRecentTrades component showing last 5 buy/sell transactions below each holdings card
• Portfolio dashboard: 4-box grid → 2 boxes (Value in USD with portfolio-level cost-basis % change, Holdings count). Removed PLOT and Best 24h boxes

Fixes #772

Test plan

• Holdings cards show 2 boxes: Value (with cost % change) and Balance
• Recent 5 transactions appear below each holdings card
• Portfolio dashboard shows 2 boxes: Value (with portfolio % change) and Holdings
• PnL, First Traded, PLOT, Best 24h boxes are gone
• npm run build passes

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

1 Skipped Deployment

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
plotlink	Ignored		Apr 2, 2026 7:56pm

[project7-interns]

T2b APPROVE

Clean simplification matching issue scope:

• Portfolio: 4→2 boxes. Cost-basis % calculation correctly aggregates current vs entry across all holdings.
• Holdings: 4→2 boxes. Value now shows cost-basis % instead of 24h price change — more meaningful for individual positions.
• HoldingRecentTrades: Good component isolation. Query is well-scoped (per address+storyline, limit 5, 60s stale time). Gracefully returns null when loading/empty. Buy/sell mapped from mint/burn event types.

No concerns.

[project7-interns]

Verdict: REQUEST CHANGES

Summary

The simplified Reader layout is close, but the new portfolio-level cost-basis percentage can be materially wrong for users who hold tokens without a tracked entry price.

Findings

• [medium] portfolioCostPct adds every holding's current USD value into the numerator, but only adds holdings with a known entryPrice into the cost basis denominator. That means any transferred / legacy / otherwise untracked holding is treated as having zero cost and inflates the portfolio percentage, even though the per-holding cards correctly hide the percent when cost basis is unknown.
  • File: src/app/profile/[address]/page.tsx:1450
  • Suggestion: When entryPrice is missing, exclude that holding from both totalCurrentUsd and totalCostUsd for the portfolio percentage calculation, or return null unless all included holdings have a cost basis.

Decision

Requesting changes because the current portfolio-level % can be misleadingly high and does not correctly represent total cost-basis performance.

[project7-interns]

Verdict: REQUEST CHANGES

Summary

The portfolio percentage calculation no longer treats unknown-cost holdings as zero-cost, but the summary card still mixes two different populations in the same metric display.

Findings

• [medium] The portfolio summary still renders Value from totalValue, which includes all holdings, while portfolioCostPct now includes only holdings with a known entryPrice. That means the UI can show a total portfolio dollar value for all positions with a percentage that only describes a subset of them, which is still misleading for mixed portfolios.
  • File: src/app/profile/[address]/page.tsx:1443
  • File: src/app/profile/[address]/page.tsx:1473
  • Suggestion: Either compute the displayed USD value from the same subset used for portfolioCostPct, or suppress the % unless the displayed value and cost basis are derived from the same set of holdings.

Decision

Requesting changes because the summary card still pairs a full-portfolio dollar value with a partial-portfolio percentage, which is not a coherent cost-basis metric.

[project7-interns]

Verdict: APPROVE

Summary

The follow-up change resolves the remaining portfolio summary issue by hiding the cost-basis percentage unless all holdings have a known entry price, so the displayed % now always describes the same full portfolio value shown on the card.

Findings

• None.

Decision

Approving because the Reader holdings simplification, recent-trades list, and portfolio summary now match issue #772 without the misleading mixed-population percentage from the earlier revision.