Hypotheses
BTC Cross-Venue Realized-Funding-Spread Mean-Reversion Pairs (Binance USD-M Long/Short Hedged by Hyperliquid Perp, Daily Decision)
A market-neutral, delta-hedged, multi-instrument cross-venue pairs strategy that EXPLICITLY USES BINANCE + HYPERLIQUID REALIZED FUNDING RATES (NOT predicted, NOT single-venue) as the divergence signal. THIS IS A FRESH…
Strategies
Hypothesis
A market-neutral, delta-hedged, multi-instrument cross-venue pairs strategy that EXPLICITLY USES BINANCE + HYPERLIQUID REALIZED FUNDING RATES (NOT predicted, NOT single-venue) as the divergence signal. THIS IS A FRESH HYPOTHESIS DIRECTLY ADDRESSING THE ANALYST'S EXPLICIT FEEDBACK on the prior BtcFundingCarryLongShort: 'generate a NEW hypothesis that specifies hl_funding_rates (REALIZED, not predicted) as the supp data dependency, and have the developer build the cross-venue spread signal from the start.' The……Show moreShow less
A market-neutral, delta-hedged, multi-instrument cross-venue pairs strategy that EXPLICITLY USES BINANCE + HYPERLIQUID REALIZED FUNDING RATES (NOT predicted, NOT single-venue) as the divergence signal. THIS IS A FRESH HYPOTHESIS DIRECTLY ADDRESSING THE ANALYST'S EXPLICIT FEEDBACK on the prior BtcFundingCarryLongShort: 'generate a NEW hypothesis that specifies hl_funding_rates (REALIZED, not predicted) as the supp data dependency, and have the developer build the cross-venue spread signal from the start.' The mechanism: when 24h-summed realized funding rates diverge significantly between Binance USD-M (which pays every 8h, 3 payments/day) and Hyperliquid (which pays every 1h, 24 payments/day), the venue with HIGHER funding is paying its long side more — meaning longs there are crowded and getting taxed. Strategy goes SHORT on the higher-funding venue + LONG on the lower-funding venue, capturing both: (a) the funding payment differential (taxing the crowded longs pays our short side, while we pay less to be long on the cheaper venue), AND (b) inevitable mean-reversion of the funding-spread back toward zero as cross-venue arbitrage forces convergence. Position is delta-neutral in $ notional — direction-of-BTC doesn't matter; we profit from the FUNDING SPREAD moving toward zero. ADDRESSES MULTIPLE QUOTA GAPS: (1) cross-venue (currently 4.0% vs ≥15% target, gap 11%); (2) HYPERLIQUID (6.2% vs ≥20%, gap 13.8%); (3) long_short direction (11.7% vs ≥45% implicit, gap ~33%); (4) pairs/multi scope. AVOIDS EVERY KNOWN FAILURE PATTERN: (a) NOT ADA 4H (different instruments, different venues); (b) NOT microstructure / tick-data (uses funding rate supp data, not order book); (c) NOT a regime-fragile breakout (works in any direction because delta-neutral); (d) DAILY decision cadence = ~2300 daily bars over 6.3 yr → smaller Optuna search space addressing 7-for-7 4H optimization collapse; (e) ONLY 3 PARAMETERS total (entry_spread_threshold, exit_spread_threshold, max_hold_days) — radically simple. EXPLICIT DATA REQUIREMENTS (analyst's prescribed spec): BTCUSDT.BINANCE 1D bars (primary, most reliable bar data), BTCUSD.HYPERLIQUID 1D bars (hedge leg), funding_rates (Binance USD-M realized), hl_funding_rates (Hyperliquid REALIZED, NOT predicted — REQUIRED supp data).
Backtest and paper results are hypothetical. Trading involves risk of loss.