BTC Cross-Venue Price Basis Mean Reversion (BINANCE Perp vs HYPERLIQUID Perp, OHLCV-Only, Long-Short Market-Neutral)

Cross-venue price basis arbitrage on BTC perps: when the price of BTCUSDT on BINANCE diverges from BTCUSD on HYPERLIQUID by more than a threshold (in basis points), enter a delta-neutral hedge that sells the over-priced venue and buys the under-priced venue. Both legs are the SAME underlying asset (BTC) on DIFFERENT venues — their prices should track within ~5-15 bps under normal conditions because arbitrageurs close gaps quickly. When the gap widens beyond ~20-30 bps (temporary liquidity dislocation, retail flow imbalance, latency arbitrage opportunity), the spread mechanically converges as smart money moves to capture it. This hypothesis fills FIVE under-represented portfolio buckets in ONE move: (a) cross-venue scope (4.3% → ≥15% target — STILL the biggest unfilled lever), (b) HYPERLIQUID venue (4.5% → ≥20% target), (c) market-neutral direction (8.9% → reducing 91.1% long-only), (d) pairs scope (14.1% → reducing 79.1% single), (e) different mechanism class than my own funding-carry / pairs-ratio / cross-settlement-funding hypotheses (which are all already in pipeline). CRITICAL DIFFERENTIATORS vs existing in-pipeline strategies: (1) BtcCrossSettlementFundingArbHedged captures FUNDING differential between BINANCE_CM and BINANCE USD-M (same exchange family, different settlement type); THIS captures PRICE basis between BINANCE and HYPERLIQUID (different exchange families). (2) ETH/BTC + SOL/BTC pairs MR capture intra-venue cross-asset ratios; THIS captures cross-venue same-asset basis. The mechanism is mechanically distinct. (3) NO funding data required — pure price-OHLCV — eliminates the supp:fundingRate data-gap failures that killed multiple recent funding-related hypotheses.