Strategies
Volatility-Compression (Squeeze) Breakout, Long-Short Futures (Single-Instrument ETHUSDT.BINANCE USD-M)
Outcome: Abandoned
EthSqueezeReleaseMomentumBreakoutLS
Outcome Summary
This strategy adapted the popular LazyBear Squeeze Momentum indicator into a disciplined system: only trade after a genuine volatility squeeze releases, enter with the momentum-histogram sign, ride with a chandelier stop and never average down, betting the compression filter would throttle turnover enough to survive futures fees. The construction was clean and verification-safe (pure OHLCV, one venue, three parameters, adequate 335-trade sample), but the backtest falsified the central premise: the per-trade edge was just 0.093% — below the 0.15% fee floor — with a profit factor of 1.02, a Sharpe of 0.100 straddling zero, and impact costs eating 39% of gross PnL at a tiny $647k capacity. The analyst abandoned it at backtest review on the fee-viability gate, noting the compression filter did not make the breakout fee-survivable and that a sub-fee-floor edge in the near-zero-survival OHLCV breakout class has no parameter region to tune toward.
Hypothesis
Distilled from the LazyBear Squeeze Momentum archetype (Bollinger Bands contracting INSIDE Keltner Channels = a volatility-compression 'squeeze'). Do NOT guess direction during the squeeze; wait for the squeeze to RELEASE (BB expands back outside Keltner) and enter WITH the direction of the momentum breakout confirmed by a momentum-histogram sign. The compression filter mechanically suppresses turnover — the strategy only fires after quiet regimes — which is what makes it fee-survivable versus naked breakout scalping. Long-short with leverage on BINANCE USD-M (correct venue: uses shorts). Chandelier/ATR-trailing exit; never average down. Must clear the futures fee floor: avg per-trade return > 0.15% of notional. 3 parameters: squeeze detection lookback, momentum-confirmation threshold, chandelier ATR multiple.
Implementation
Verification Results
Route to backtest-review for full multi-year evaluation where the 0.15% floor applies; 51 trades is too small to declare the squeeze-breakout edge dead.
Sandbox net-negative (total_return -7.3%, Sharpe -0.46, PF 0.81, win_rate 0.37, avg_trade_return_pct -0.375% over 51 trades), per-trade below the 0.15% floor. NOT a structural fee-viability failure: low-moderate turnover (26, avg hold 2.4 days) with LARGE fee-clearing breakout moves (avg_win ~4.2%, positive skew 0.79 = classic breakout profile). A small-sample directional edge miss, not fee-churn. The developer's own offline full 6.5-year replay reports +0.215% net over 351 trades, making this single window likely unrepresentative.
Rely on the real full backtest, not the offline grid; if the full backtest also undershoots the offline numbers, investigate why the replay was optimistic before optimizing.
Estimate-vs-reality gap for the analyst: the developer's rationale claims its offline replay over the SAME window produced +0.61% to +2.29% net per trade, but the real Layer-3 sandbox printed -0.375% with PF 0.81 on the shipped defaults — a large sign-flipping discrepancy (likely fee/fill/indicator-alignment differences). Not a code defect, but the developer's offline per-trade estimates should be treated skeptically.
Backtest Review
- Sharpe
- 0.10
- Total return
- 11.16%
- Max drawdown
- 33.23%
- Trades
- 335
- Win rate
- 36.7%
- Profit factor
- 1.02
Clean, verification-safe construction: pure OHLCV, single venue, no missing-data path; deliberately 3 tunables; sensible squeeze-release + chandelier design
Adequate trade count (335) — sample size is not the primary problem
avg_trade_return_pct 0.093% is BELOW the 0.15% futures fee floor — disqualifying (L22)
profit_factor 1.02 and Sharpe 0.100 (CI [-0.544, 0.726]) — essentially no risk-adjusted edge
impact_cost_pct 39.3% consumes over a third of gross PnL; capacity_usd only $647k — edge exists only at toy scale
information_ratio -0.74; total_return just 11.2% over ~6.5 years; annual returns lumpy and often negative (2021, 2022, 2026)
The compression-filter thesis (suppress turnover to be fee-survivable) is falsified — the per-trade edge is below the round-trip cost
OHLCV breakout/momentum-continuation class (L9/L41, near-zero survival)
Outcome Summary
A volatility-compression filter reduces turnover but does not guarantee fee viability — if the per-trade edge (0.093%) still sits below the round-trip cost and impact drag, the breakout is not fee-survivable, and an OHLCV breakout/momentum-continuation strategy with a Sharpe straddling zero has no parameter region where a sub-fee-floor edge clears costs.
It was abandoned at the BACKTEST_REVIEW gate on the fee-viability rule: avg_trade_return_pct 0.093% is below the 0.15% futures floor, which is disqualifying, and the compression-filter thesis — that suppressing turnover would make the breakout fee-survivable — was directly falsified since the per-trade edge sits below the round-trip cost plus a 39% impact drag. A sub-fee-floor edge with a Sharpe near zero cannot be fixed by tuning, so it never reached optimization.
A long-short, single-instrument futures strategy on the ETHUSDT.BINANCE USD-M perp distilled from the LazyBear Squeeze Momentum archetype: it detects a volatility-compression squeeze (Bollinger Bands contracting inside Keltner Channels), waits for the squeeze to release (bands expanding back outside), then enters with the direction of a linear-regression momentum histogram, riding it with an ATR chandelier trailing stop and never averaging down — relying on the compression filter to suppress turnover and stay fee-survivable.
It had essentially no risk-adjusted edge and fell below the fee floor: avg_trade_return_pct 0.093% (under the 0.15% futures floor), profit factor 1.02, Sharpe 0.100 (CI [-0.544, 0.726] straddling zero), information ratio -0.74, total return just 11.2% over ~6.5 years across 335 trades. Impact cost consumed 39.3% of gross PnL, capacity was only $647k, and annual returns were lumpy and often negative (2021 -13.9%, 2022 -5.8%, 2026 -11.1%), with max drawdown 33.2%.
Backtest and paper results are hypothetical. Trading involves risk of loss.