Strategies
ETH Weekly Directional Vertical-Spread Momentum (DERIBIT options, defined-risk bull-call / bear-put spreads driven by a 4-week trend sign, signal from ETHUSDT.BINANCE, roll weekly, 2-parameter)
Outcome: Abandoned
EthDeribitWeeklyDirectionalVerticalSpreadMomentum
Outcome Summary
This strategy expressed a slow directional-trend edge on ETH through weekly Deribit vertical debit spreads, chosen specifically to sidestep the factory's two options graveyards — short-vol blowups and unbounded long-option MTM artifacts. On the full available option-coverage window (~48 weekly cycles, Sep 2025–Sep 2026), it lost 25.0% with a profit factor of 0.925, expectancy of -$521 per cycle, negative Sharpe and a 71.3% drawdown. Notably ETH fell hard (~4500 to ~2000) over the window, giving the directional premise an ideal test, yet the weekly-trend vertical still whipsawed to a loss because the bounded wrapper did not clear premium and spread cost. The analyst abandoned it at the backtest-review stage as negative-expectancy, judging it not worth the optimization spend; optimization, analyst post-opt review, and risk review were never reached.
Hypothesis
Net spread economics are decisively negative on the FULL available option-coverage window (~48 weekly cycles / 96 legs, 2025-09 to 2026-09 — the Deribit weekly ETH chain does not resolve earlier, so this is the whole measurable sample, not a data gap): profit_factor 0.925 (<1), expectancy -$521/cycle, total_return -25.0%, Sharpe -0.26 with CI [-2.98, 1.43] straddling zero, 71.3% max drawdown. The per-leg avg_trade_return_pct -45.5% is a defined-risk accounting artifact (QA borne out — sold OTM leg expires worthless = 'win', long leg loses) and is judged out; the honest net read is a gross-negative signal. The directional-trend premise got its best test — ETH fell ~4500 to ~2000 over the window — and the weekly-trend vertical still whipsawed to a loss, so the bounded-vertical wrapper does not clear premium/spread cost. A net-negative (PF<1) signal cannot be lifted above costs by tuning 2 parameters, so this is not worth 2 hours of optimization. abandon_class=negative_expectancy.
Implementation
Verification Results
Acceptable as a structural proxy. If delta targeting matters to the thesis, resolve legs against the chain's delta rather than fixed % offsets.
Hypothesis specifies ~25-delta long / ~10-delta short legs; the code selects legs by fixed moneyness (5%/10% OTM offsets in rolling_options) rather than by delta. The bounded debit-vertical STRUCTURE (long closer-to-spot, short further-OTM, same size/expiry) is preserved and the directional edge is intact, so this is not a critical mismatch, but the realized deltas will drift from the stated 25/10 as IV changes.
Verify the base's roll/warm-up still fires correctly with the overridden min_bars_required; keep the override if intentional.
min_bars_required() and _enter_leg() override framework methods (flagged by static analysis as base_shadow). These appear to be deliberate extension points (min_bars scaled to the 28-day daily warm-up; _enter_leg is the documented per-leg entry hook called by the base roll loop). Confirm RollingOptionsStrategy does not itself depend on its own min_bars_required for option-leg warm-up gating, since the override sets it to trend_lookback+2 primary (daily) bars.
Backtest Review
- Sharpe
- -0.26
- Total return
- -25.05%
- Max drawdown
- 71.32%
- Trades
- 96
- Win rate
- 53.1%
- Profit factor
- 0.93
Structurally avoids the two options graveyards: net-long a BOUNDED debit vertical (tail capped, no short-vol blowup) and not a lone long leg (no unbounded MTM artifact — indeed no +9198% headline here).
The trade footprint matches the hypothesis: 48 long + 48 short cycles, calls when 28-day trend up / puts when down, held to roll — the mechanism is implemented as described.
Fills the under-represented options venue bucket.
Net (not per-leg) economics are decisively negative: total_return -25.0%, profit_factor 0.925 (<1), expectancy -$521/cycle, Sharpe -0.26 with CI [-2.98, 1.43] straddling zero.
71.3% max drawdown with ±25-30% single-day swings on a nominally 1.2%-max-loss defined-risk structure — the sizing/MTM is not capping loss as designed, yet the book still loses.
This IS the full option-coverage window: the Deribit weekly ETH chain only resolves ~2025-09 to 2026-09 (all daily returns fall in that span), so the ~48-cycle / 96-leg sample is the whole available test, not an early-window data gap — the mechanism was measured and failed.
ETH trended hard down (~4500 to ~2000) over the window — the ideal condition for a directional trend vertical — and it still whipsawed to a loss; the bounded-vertical wrapper does not clear real premium/spread cost.
avg_trade_return_pct -45.5% is a per-leg defined-risk accounting artifact and not fee-comparable (QA point 1 correct), so judged on net spread PnL — which is negative.
Outcome Summary
A bounded vertical-spread wrapper structurally caps the tail but does not by itself clear real premium and spread cost; a signal that produces a PF<1 net result over its whole measurable window cannot be rescued by tuning two parameters.
It was abandoned at the pre-optimization backtest-review gate (abandon verdict, abandon_class=negative_expectancy): net spread economics were decisively negative with PF<1, and this was the full available Deribit weekly ETH chain window (2025-09 to 2026-09), not an early-data gap, so the mechanism was measured and failed.
A defined-risk, directional weekly options structure on Deribit ETH that read the sign of ETH's trailing 28-day return and bought a bull-call spread when the trend was up or a bear-put spread when down, rolling each week and deliberately avoiding the naked short-vol and unbounded long-option shapes that failed before.
Over ~48 weekly cycles (96 legs) it lost money net: total return -25.0%, profit factor 0.925, expectancy -$521/cycle, Sharpe -0.26 (CI [-2.98, 1.43]) and a 71.3% max drawdown, with win rate 53% but per-leg avg_trade_return_pct of -45.5% flagged as a defined-risk accounting artifact.
Backtest and paper results are hypothetical. Trading involves risk of loss.