Strategies
Range-Fade Gated by Open-Interest Flatness, Single-Venue Long-Short (Single-Instrument BNBUSDT.BINANCE USD-M — Buy the Lower Band / Sell the Upper Band ONLY When Open Interest Is FLAT = a Balanced, Leverage-Neutral RANGING Market That Mean-Reverts; Stand Aside When OI Is EXPANDING = New Leverage Building a Trend; Mid-Band Exit + ATR Stop, 3-Parameter)
Outcome: Abandoned
BnbRangeFadeOpenInterestFlatnessGatedLS
Outcome Summary
This strategy tried a fresh angle on the chronically-failing mean-reversion problem: fade Bollinger bands only when open interest is flat, on the theory that trends are built by fresh leverage entering (rising OI) while genuine mean-reverting ranges occur when OI is flat and participants are two-sided — using OI in a novel regime-classifier role rather than as a momentum confirm. The construction was clean and disciplined (single venue, three parameters, a scale-invariant self-quantile flatness cut, flat when OI is stale). But the backtest falsified the premise outright: profit factor 0.70, a -51.6% return, a 54.2% drawdown that breached the hard-abandon floor and flatly contradicted the balanced-range thesis, and losses in 5 of 6 years with a wrong-signed per-trade edge. The analyst abandoned it at backtest review as another member of the repeatedly-dead range/mean-reversion fade family — the OI-flatness gate did not prevent the fade from being run over, exactly as the session's other regime-gated reversion candidates had failed — with no edge anywhere to optimize toward.
Hypothesis
Implementation
Verification Results
Verification failed (leverage_set_but_unused): config sets leverage=2.0 but the strategy never references leverage in sizing. Size positions on it — notional = equity * fraction * leverage / price (read self.config.leverage) — or set leverage=1.0. As written the leverage is inert and the backtest is identical to 1x.
Route to backtest-review for full multi-year evaluation (range + trend regimes) where the 0.15% floor applies; 38 trades is too small to declare it dead.
Sandbox net-negative (total_return -8.8%, Sharpe -0.72, PF 0.60, win_rate 0.447, avg_trade_return_pct -0.294% over 38 trades), per-trade below the 0.15% floor. NOT a structural fee-viability failure: moderate turnover (24, avg hold ~1 day) with fee-clearing moves (avg_win ~1.5%, avg_loss ~2%). The net loss is a low-win-rate directional edge miss over a small window — the short side underperformed (0.33 vs 0.55 long), i.e. upper-band fades got run over on up-moves despite the OI gate. A mean-reversion edge question, not fee churn.
Optimizer/analyst may find a stricter percentile (e.g. 0.3) isolates true ranges and improves win rate; sensitivity check worthwhile, not required.
Calibration note (not a defect): flat_pctile=0.5 (median of |oi_change|) classifies HALF of all bars as 'flat', a loose definition of a balanced range. The 3-searched-parameter claim still holds (flat_pctile is fixed, not searched), and using |oi_change| for both expansion and contraction is a defensible reading of 'flat', though the hypothesis emphasized standing aside on expansion.
Backtest Review
- Sharpe
- -0.21
- Total return
- -51.61%
- Max drawdown
- 54.25%
- Trades
- 303
- Win rate
- 45.2%
- Profit factor
- 0.70
Clean, data-safe construction: single venue/instrument, OI-flatness used as an orthogonal regime classifier; deliberately 3 tunables; adequate trade count (303)
profit_factor 0.70 (< 1.0) — the strategy loses money; total_return -51.6%
avg_trade_return_pct NEGATIVE (-0.289%) with expectancy -$170/trade — the signal is wrong-signed, no fee/frequency change can fix it
max_drawdown 54.2% (CI high 85.8%) — hard-floor violation (L19), contradicting the 'balanced ranging regime' thesis
Sharpe -0.211 (CI [-0.89, 0.44]); information_ratio -0.91; probabilistic_sharpe 0.26 — no skill
Negative in 5 of 6 years (2022 -14.5%, 2024 -27.0%, 2025 -22.2%); avg_loss > avg_win
Range/mean-reversion fade family (repeatedly dead here); the OI-flatness regime gate did not rescue it
Outcome Summary
Using open-interest flatness as a ranging-regime classifier does not rescue band mean-reversion — like the funding/VWAP/OI-gated reversion siblings abandoned the same session, the regime/confirmation gate never saves crypto mean-reversion, which still gets run over in trends, producing a wrong-signed per-trade edge and a >50% drawdown with no parameter region to tune toward.
It was abandoned at the BACKTEST_REVIEW gate under both the total-return ≤ 0 / profit-factor < 1.0 rule and the >50% drawdown hard-abandon rule: the OI-flatness regime gate was falsified — the gated band fade still got run over — with a 54.2% drawdown directly contradicting the balanced-ranging thesis. Because the per-trade return is negative (wrong-signed), no threshold or frequency change could help, so it never reached optimization or analysis.
A long-short, single-instrument, single-venue range mean-reversion strategy on the BNBUSDT.BINANCE USD-M perp that fades Bollinger-style bands (buy the lower / sell the upper) but only when open interest is flat — using OI flatness as a ranging-regime classifier (balanced, leverage-neutral tape that mean-reverts) and standing aside when OI is expanding (fresh leverage building a trend), exiting on a mid-band reversion target, opposite band, ATR stop, or time stop.
It was a decisive net loser with a catastrophic drawdown: profit factor 0.70, total return -51.6% over ~5 years, avg_trade_return_pct -0.289% (negative, expectancy -$170/trade), Sharpe -0.211 (CI [-0.89, 0.44]), information ratio -0.91, and max drawdown 54.2% (CI to 85.8%) across 303 trades. It lost in 5 of 6 years (2024 -27.0%, 2025 -22.2%) with avg loss ($1,048) exceeding avg win ($894).
Backtest and paper results are hypothetical. Trading involves risk of loss.