Strategies
Single-Exchange BTC Cash-and-Carry Funding Harvest: Long Binance Spot / Short Binance USD-M Perp, Funding-Regime-Gated, Near-Always-On (Delta-Neutral, Market-Neutral, Clean Intra-Exchange Basis, Low-Parameter)
Outcome: Abandoned
BtcSingleVenueCashCarryFundingHarvest
Outcome Summary
BtcSingleVenueCashCarryFundingHarvest implemented the analyst's exact prescription — same-exchange long-spot/short-perp BTC carry, near-always-on, tiny parameter count — to fix the cross-venue funding failures, and funding was indeed credited (+$69k) on continuous trading with large capacity. But the hedge broke on crash bars: a +2461% LUNA-day return, kurtosis 184, and a 268% drawdown betrayed a net-short book from the CASH-bounded spot leg undersizing the MARGIN perp, and once the artifact days were stripped the strategy bled to a negative total return on fees and decayed funding. The analyst ruled it a hedge/accounting artifact that fails DSR (0.0), significance, and the holdout (ratio 0.04), with no further reframe available and the viable carry already captured by advanced siblings. It ended at the attempt limit as abandoned, reaching optimization and analysis but never risk review.
Hypothesis
Implementation
Single-exchange delta-neutral, market-neutral BTC cash-and-carry funding harvest: SHORT BTCUSDT Binance USD-M perp (primary) to collect funding while LONG equal-notional BTCUSDT Binance SPOT (extra leg) hedges delta. A smoothed funding MA with a sign-hysteresis latch keeps the book near-always-on through the whole positive-funding regime (one entry / one exit amortized over months of 8-hourly accrual) and flat when funding turns negative. Both legs are sized to equal notional bounded by the smaller of the two venue accounts (perp MARGIN vs spot CASH) for true hedging. Funding is read only from the funding_rates series; no funding -> flat (no fabricated trades). 1-HOUR bars on both legs.
Backtest Review
- Sharpe
- 3.76
- Total return
- -2.57%
- Max drawdown
- 2.72%
- Trades
- 156
- Win rate
- 50.6%
- Profit factor
- 1.36
Genuine funding carry that clears costs: trade-level decomposition shows funding +$69,378 vs price_pnl -$6,855 (tight hedge residual) and commission $6,005 -> net ~+$56k realized; the same-venue spot+perp legs are genuinely delta-neutral on price (the dominant cycle: spot +$72,949 vs perp -$73,672 = -$723 net, plus +$51,902 funding).
The single-venue reframe structurally fixed the cross-venue failures: continuous trading (122 cycles, ~16-day holds), funding clears the same-venue fees, large capacity ($106M) and low impact (3.1%) — unlike the zero-recent-trade cross-venue siblings.
Mechanism matches the hypothesis exactly: balanced equal-notional long-spot/short-perp pairs, regime-gated, near-always-on; fills the BINANCE_SPOT, two-suffix, and market-neutral buckets and diversifies away from the momentum-dominated book.
Headline metrics are DISTORTED by funding-realization timing: funding is booked at trade exits (not accrued smoothly), producing the phantom +2461% 'day' (2021-05-19), total_return -2.46, return_skew -3.63, kurtosis 184, and a lumpy daily-return Sharpe — none reflect the true economics.
Regime-dependent carry: richest in 2020/2021 (the +51,902 funding cycle), thinner recently (annuals 2022 +0.12, 2023 +0.20, 2024 +0.80, 2025 +0.19, 2026 -0.05) — BTC USD-M funding has decayed, so recent-era per-cycle carry margin over fees is the open question.
122 entry/exit cycles means the two-leg round-trip is paid repeatedly; the 'near-always-on' latch should be checked that it isn't churning more than the funding regime warrants.
spot +72.9k / perp -73.7k = -0.7k net
price legs offset
122 cycles, trades through 2026
trades in recent regime
funding +$69k vs fees $6k + price -$6.9k
funding > costs
total_return -2.46 vs +56k realized; skew -3.6
consistent
Analysis
Mechanism is well-formed and legitimately single-venue: long BINANCE_SPOT BTC vs short BINANCE USD-M perp, same quote (USDT), funding correctly credited on the short-perp leg (funding_events_available 8722). This is the exact structural reframe prescribed after the cross-venue siblings died, and it did remove the cross-venue basis noise.
Sensitivity is clean (0 cliffs), delta-neutrality holds (beta ~-0.0001, benchmark_correlation ~0), and it correctly diversifies edge type away from momentum.
The realized carry edge is essentially zero: optimized avg_trade_return_pct 0.012% — an order of magnitude below the 0.15% USD-M fee floor. The funding premium collected does not clear round-trip costs.
The optimized backtest LOSES money: total_return -1.238 (i.e. -100%+ notional after leverage/MTM), Sharpe -0.076, Sortino -0.023, omega 0.91, CAGR wiped. The headline Sharpe 3.76 / WF-OOS 8.87 are best-of-N artifacts, not edge.
HARD gate fails that can never be waived: PBO 0.7103 > 0.5 (more likely than not overfit) and holdout Sharpe -0.855 <= 0 on the unseen last-20% (22 trades, z_vs_oos -9.54, consistent_with_oos=false).
Robustness collapses: deflated_sharpe 0.0, probabilistic_sharpe 0.42, is_significant=false, Sharpe CI [-0.55, 1.98] straddles zero, does not survive programme FDR (keeps 3 of 228).
Loses in every vol regime (calm -0.17, normal -0.94, stressed -0.81 Sharpe) and every stress window is negative. The entire positive-Sharpe illusion in the initial run comes from a handful of enormous single-day spikes (2021-05-19 daily return +15.77, 2020-09-15 +1.11) — MTM hedge-mismatch prints, not carry accrual (end_unrealized_pct -26 to -15).
This is the reopened duplicate (similarity 1.0) of an already-failed run, and the 5th funding-carry sibling to die (fee_edge x2, overfit, other, other). The prescribed single-venue reframe was tested and the edge is still below costs.
Benjamini-Hochberg at q=0.10 over 228 programme candidates keeps 3. A candidate that does not survive here is not distinguishable from the programme's own noise, however good its individual statistics look.
Outcome Summary
A high raw Sharpe on a market-neutral carry that also shows a negative total return and a >100% drawdown is a hedge/accounting artifact, not an edge: 'single venue' did not net the legs on fast-move bars because spot (CASH) and perp (MARGIN) remain two instruments/accounts whose MTM diverges, and the genuine BTC funding carry has decayed too far to clear fees — the viable delta-neutral spot-perp expression is already captured by promoted/advanced siblings, leaving no further reframe.
It passed the pre-optimization backtest-review gate (verdict: optimize) but was abandoned at the post-optimization analyst gate (verdict: abandon): the 'delta-neutral' book is not actually hedged (a +2461% crash day and 268% drawdown are impossible for a true carry — the CASH-bounded spot leg appears undersized vs the MARGIN perp, leaving the book net-short), stripping the artifact days it loses money to fees and decayed funding, and it failed DSR, significance, and holdout while over the 2-attempt limit — so it never advanced to risk review.
A market-neutral, single-venue cash-and-carry funding harvest on BTC — holding long BTCUSDT.BINANCE_SPOT and short the BTCUSDT.BINANCE USD-M perp in equal notional, gated to a sign-hysteresis latch that stays near-always-on through the whole positive-funding regime to amortize entry costs over months of 8h funding accrual — the analyst's prescribed single-exchange/same-quote/near-always-on reframe to fix the cross-venue funding failures, with a tiny 2-parameter design.
Over ~6 years and 122 cycles (244 leg-trades) funding was genuinely credited (+$69,378 vs price PnL -$6,855 and $6,005 commission, ~+$56k realized on the dominant cycle) with low impact and $106M capacity, but the headline was artifact-laden and money-losing: total return -2.46% (optimized -1.93%), kurtosis 184, skew -3.63, a phantom +2461% day (2021-05-19) and 268% max drawdown at 173% exposure, with optimization failing every robustness gate — deflated Sharpe 0.0, not significant, selected Sharpe 3.79 far below the 11.93 luck bar, and a catastrophic holdout (ratio 0.042, holdout Sharpe 0.157 vs WF-OOS 3.70).
Backtest and paper results are hypothetical. Trading involves risk of loss.