A MARKET-NEUTRAL (mean-reverting), single-instrument, quote-tick microstructure strategy on BTCUSDT.BINANCE USD-M perpetual that provides liquidity with PASSIVE MAKER LIMIT ORDERS — a fundamentally different execution model than every strategy this session, all of which use taker/market orders and all of which die (195x) or are structurally threatened by fee_edge. This is the deliberate answer to the single most persistent failure mode. Directional FADING at bar scale was decisively refuted this session (cross-sectional reversal −48%; VWAP/wick dead), but that is a DIFFERENT thing from what market-makers do: MMs profit from the mean-reversion of MICRO-dislocations precisely because they (a) EARN the bid-ask spread instead of paying it and (b) pay the MAKER fee (Binance USD-M 0.02%) not the taker fee (0.05%), so a passive round-trip costs ~0.04% versus the ~0.10% that dooms taker strategies. That ~2.5x lower cost floor is the structural edge no directional strategy here has had. Mechanism: track a short-term fair value (microprice / EMA of mid) from quote ticks; when the mid deviates modestly from fair value (a transient noise dislocation, NOT a trend), post a MAKER LIMIT order on the favorable side to provide liquidity at a better price; if filled, exit passively at/near fair value, capturing the reversion PLUS the spread; if price continues against the fill beyond a hard threshold (adverse selection / real move), cut immediately with a taker stop. It is genuinely distinct from the three taker microstructure probes already pending (BTC liquidity-sweep, SOL CVD flow, ETH order-book depth — all AGGRESSIVE/directional): this is PASSIVE/mean-reverting and fee-advantaged. Fills the under-represented SHORT horizon (9.2%), the empty market-neutral bucket, and introduces both the quote_ticks primitive and maker-order execution, absent from the portfolio. Single instrument, single venue (no cross-venue infra trap). BTC has the tightest spread and deepest quote stream on Binance with multi-year history → a very high, measurable fill count. Only 3 parameters, attacking the overfit killer. Adds to over-represented BINANCE — accepted; quote depth/tightness is the reason. I flag upfront the central caveat (passive-fill realism) in risk factors so QA can scrutinize it.