Strategies
51bitquant MartingleSpotStrategyV2: Faithful ETC Spot Drawdown-and-Bounce Accumulation
Outcome: Abandoned
EtcMartingleSpotStrategyV2
Outcome Summary
After two iterations, EtcMartingleSpotStrategyV2 produced 805 closed ETC spot baskets and passed backtest review for frozen evaluation. The final replay returned 36.298% with Sharpe 0.355 and 19.497% maximum drawdown, while a recovering basket remained open for 921 days. The analyst abandoned the faithful port because only 4 of 9 exposed years were profitable, below the enforced 60% requirement, with profits concentrated in 2021. Changing frozen parameters or adding protective rules would alter the requested strategy.
Hypothesis
Faithful port of MartingleSpotStrategyV2 by 51bitquant, using ETCUSDT.BINANCE_SPOT and 1-minute bars. Preserve executable defaults rather than contradictory comments: both drawdown thresholds are 0.04, not 0.05; the take-profit threshold is 0.02. Preserve close-priced resting LIMIT orders, not market orders or intrabar take-profit brackets. Orders submitted after a completed bar cannot fill retrospectively against that bar's earlier range. The source's 1000 USDT initial_trading_value is adapted to 1% of equity captured at the start of each accumulation cycle, matching 1000 USDT on the platform's 100000 USDT initial account. Freeze that base throughout the cycle. Preserve the 1.3 multiplier and counter semantics, allowing one initial purchase and up to seven additions. No stop-loss, time exit, trend filter or funding filter is added. Source trading_fee=0.00075 remains a diagnostic bookkeeping default; actual platform commissions determine economic results. The promotional link failed to resolve and supplied no additional strategy rules.
The submitted strategy is complete and testable with supported spot limit orders and netted inventory. Preserve its mechanism rather than adding filters based on previous failures. ETC avoids repeating the named DOT inventory-balancing and LINK Supertrend ports; this strategy buys only after a drawdown and adds after a decline-and-bounce, rather than maintaining a cash/coin grid or following trend indicators. Spot is underrepresented at 11.1% versus its 15% target. The requested faithful port necessarily remains single-symbol and long-only despite those dimensions being overrepresented. Corpus concentration is empty, so no claim is made that ETC is unused or below 15% share.
Reject this faithful ETC port for promotion: its enforced positive-years requirement fails at 4/9 years, with profits concentrated in 2021 and prolonged underwater accumulation. Per-trade return is positive at 1.802% versus the supplied 0.40% economics floor, so this is not a fee-edge failure. No remaining implementation defect is established; adding protective rules or changing frozen values would change the requested faithful strategy. Inconclusive significance is not the abandonment basis. No engine artifact is asserted, and this verdict does not reject other accumulation variants or the differently specified promoted sibling.
Implementation
Faithful port of 51bitquant MartingleSpotStrategyV2 on ETCUSDT Binance spot 1m bars. When the 2880-bar Donchian high is >=4% above the bar low and holdings are below 11 USDT, start a cycle with a close-priced GTC LIMIT BUY sized at 1% of equity (frozen per cycle). Add up to 7 times (size x1.3^n) after a >=4% decline from the last entry price followed by a >=1% bounce off the post-entry low. Exit the whole basket with a close-priced reduce-only LIMIT SELL once close/avg_price-1 >= 2%. No stop, time exit or filters.
Verification Results
No change required; behavior matches the source.
Additions require the full chain to complete: decline >= 4%, then bounce >= 1%, then the close-priced GTC limit BUY fills. That limit stays open until the next decision cancels it. An unfilled addition blocks new additions (buy_working) until the take-profit branch cancels it. The source does the same with its buy_orders list, so this is faithful, but in a fast rebound an addition can sit unfilled.
None; noted for traceability.
sync_with_engine overwrites current_pos and avg_price from the engine position (avg_px_open) on every bar, while on_order_filled also updates them per fill. The two agree for a single netted long, so there is no behavioral difference. avg_px_open is engine-side and excludes fees, the same as the source's avg_price.
None.
Fixed parameters initial_trading_value (1000), trading_fee and history_days are read but have no effect on trading. Sizing uses 1% of cycle-start equity, as the hypothesis states; trading_fee only feeds the diagnostic total_profit. This is the disclosed adaptation.
This is a martingale averaging-down design with no hard stop; the hypothesis specifies that, so it is not a defect here. Worst-case inventory per cycle: 1% x sum(1.3^k, k=0..7) = about 23.9% of cycle-start equity. Spot is 1x, so the book can never ask for more than the available cash. That also bounds the worst loss on one stuck cycle to about 24% of equity, against the contract's 25% max-drawdown constraint. The sandbox gives no evidence on that tail. It closed only 4 baskets, all winners: PF 0.0 means there were no losing closed trades (see L188), not an accounting fault. Its drawdown was already 28.6% (mark-to-market, 12 days), which is above the 25% constraint. Spot round-trip cost is about 0.20% versus the 2% basket take-profit, so fees are not the risk. The risk is a long ETC decline that strands the basket after 7 additions. The analyst should check worst open-inventory drawdown, how long stuck baskets are held, and win-rate concentration on full history.
Backtest Review
- Sharpe
- 0.35
- Total return
- 35.99%
- Max drawdown
- 19.50%
- Trades
- 805
- Win rate
- 99.9%
- Profit factor
- 3.16
Prior inventory fix worked: 805 closed long baskets. Sampled exits and variable accumulation sizes match the specified mechanism.
Net average trade return 1.801% exceeds the 0.25% spot review floor; PF 3.156 and total return +35.990% justify proceeding with the frozen, all-fixed evaluation.
Accounting reconciles; terminal unrealized return is zero. Sampled buy-and-hold return is -38.745%, with approximately 94.634% drawdown, versus strategy drawdown 19.497%.
The 99.876% win rate reflects take-profit-only exits and one terminal losing closure, not demonstrated robustness. The final basket lost $16,692 after 337 days; no artifact mechanism is established.
QA's stranded-inventory concern is borne out: one basket lasted 921 days with -81.632% trade MAE before recovery. Account drawdown nevertheless remains within the contracted 25% limit.
MTM Sharpe is 0.353, five calendar years are negative, and exposure is 95.05%. Forward validation remains necessary.
Analysis
Final fixed-parameter replay closely matches baseline: 805 closed baskets, Sharpe 0.355 and total return 36.298%.
Average net trade return 1.802% exceeds the supplied 0.40% economics floor; PF 3.216 and drawdown 19.497% clears the contractual 25% limit.
Full-history trade-count, return, per-trade-return and drawdown predictions were met. OOS significance remains unmeasured.
Sampled buy-and-hold return is -38.745%, with approximately 94.634% drawdown; benchmark underperformance is not the rejection reason.
Enforced hard failure: only 4 of 9 exposed calendar years are profitable, 44.4% versus the required 60%. This is not classified as soak advisory.
2021 accounts for 112.3% of profit; Calmar is 0.194 and drawdown recovery lasts 921 days.
The 99.876% win rate reflects profit-target exits while losing inventory remains open. A winning basket lasted 921 days with -81.63% adverse excursion. The terminal basket lost $16,692 after 336 days, approximately 255 average wins. These observations do not establish an engine artifact.
The 608-day holdout has 114 trades and Sharpe -0.500, but its HAC assessment is inconclusive, not statistically rejected. Pooled OOS significance lacks complete MTM coverage, and consistency is invalid because return frequencies differ.
The drawdown-threshold sensitivity cliff is advisory. Null sweep measurements are unknown. The faithful-port contract fixes every parameter.
soft
hard
Outcome Summary
A near-perfect profit-target win rate can coexist with years of underwater inventory and weak performance across calendar years.
The analyst abandoned it because the enforced positive-years requirement failed: 44.4% versus 60%, alongside concentrated profits and prolonged underwater accumulation. Fee economics passed; inconclusive significance and an engine artifact were not the abandonment basis, and risk review was not reached.
Faithfully port ETC spot drawdown-and-bounce accumulation using close-priced limit orders, a frozen 1% cycle equity base, up to seven additions at a 1.3 multiplier, and a 2% profit target without a stop-loss.
The baseline backtest returned 35.990% with Sharpe 0.353, 805 closed baskets and 19.497% maximum drawdown; the final fixed-parameter replay returned 36.298% with Sharpe 0.355. Final average net trade return was 1.802%, but only 4 of 9 exposed calendar years were profitable and 2021 contributed 112.3% of profit.
Analysis
MartingleSpotStrategyV2
Analysis
martingle_spot_strategyV2.py
Backtest and paper results are hypothetical. Trading involves risk of loss.