What a year of honest testing actually found

Before this site existed, we spent a year building and forward-testing automated strategies with paper money — and, unusually, publishing the failures. Every claim below is something we measured, not something we read.

1. A high win rate is not profit

Two of our bots won 85% and 83% of their trades and still lost money in twelve days. A handful of large losses erased dozens of small wins. The number that matters is profit factor — gross wins divided by gross losses — together with the ratio of average win to average loss. Any leaderboard that sorts by win rate is sorting by the wrong column.

2. Below some holding period, the fee is the strategy

We built a 1-minute scalper properly: volatility filter, ATR stops, circuit breakers. Two independent engines put it at roughly −99% over six months. The autopsy: round-trip cost was ~70% of the entire stop distance, and fees alone were 54% of the loss. It was deployed live anyway, against a failing gate, to test one question — whether live fills behave differently from replayed candles. They did not. It was retired at 46 trades.

3. Most edges are just a regime in disguise

Our best strategy returned +11% in the bear year it was designed in. Tested in three unseen regimes — a +2,500% bull, a second bear, a recovery — it lost in all three. Nothing about the rules changed; only the weather did. When you see a spectacular 90-day record, the first question is what the market did during those 90 days.

4. Optimising raises the backtest number, not the real one

We optimised a strategy over 64 parameter sets on 70% of history, then ran the winner on the unseen 30%: in-sample +19.8% with a 100% win rate became +2.7% with a 50% win rate. A 100% win rate in a backtest is the fingerprint of luck-fitting. Check your own backtest →

5. Aggression does not create edge

Same strategy at 1%, 2% and 3% risk per trade: +6.7%, +5.5%, −10%. Monotonically worse. Risk systems are non-linear — bigger bets trip the protections that were producing the edge in the first place. "Same edge, bigger size" is false.

6. The boring answer beat everything

Across six years of data, buying and holding — and buying on a fixed schedule — beat every strategy we built, by a wide margin. That result is not inspiring and cannot be sold as a course, which is roughly why nobody sells it to you.

We are running a live experiment on copy trading →

Independent analysis of publicly available Binance copy-trading data. Not affiliated with Binance. Not financial advice. All figures come from Binance's public API at crawl time.