Peter_O Stochastic Cross and 100-Tick Profit Target — SOL Hyperliquid 4H

Hypothesis

Faithful port of Peter_O's educational TradingView strategy, https://www.tradingview.com/script/9Iwinz7I-How-to-use-Leverage-and-Margin-in-PineScript/ (MPL-2.0). Preserve K=13, D=3, Smooth=4, TP=100 ticks, pyramiding=100, both directions, and no protective stop. The source specifies 3000% of equity per entry and margin_long=margin_short=1/30*50=1.6666667%; these are distinct sizing and margin settings. Adapt entry notional to 2000% of current mark-to-market equity, with aggregate exposure capped at the platform's 20x leverage ceiling and its own margin/liquidation model. This is an execution adaptation, not reproduction of TradingView margin calls. The source specifies no instrument or timeframe; select SOLUSD.HYPERLIQUID 4-HOUR bars. Substitute signal-bar-close market fills for Pine's default next-bar-open fills, as required by the capability registry. Plots and shaded oscillator bands are display-only.

The corpus concentration map is empty, so individual-symbol shares cannot be established. Hyperliquid is under its 20% venue target and long-short strategies address the heavily long-only corpus. Four-hour bars avoid Hyperliquid's short intraday history. Keep the source's single-instrument mechanism despite the scope quota; adding hedges, funding filters or regime rules would change the requested port. Previous failures inform cautious predictions but do not justify rejecting these concrete rules.

negative_expectancy: decline optimization of this fixed SOL Hyperliquid 4H adaptation because its measured execution economics lose money on every closed position and exhaust the funded account. This decision concerns the platform's 20x, close-fill adaptation of Peter_O's educational example, not the original TradingView margin simulation or stochastic strategies generally.

Implementation

SOL Hyperliquid 4H stochastic SMA(4) of stochastic(13), with SMA(3) signal line. Buy bullish crosses below K=80 and sell bearish crosses above K=20; reverse on opposing qualifying crosses. Each completed entry receives a reduce-only limit target 100 instrument ticks from its average fill. No protective stop; up to 100 concurrent entries subject to a 20× mark-to-market equity exposure cap.

Preserves Peter_O's indicator defaults, strict oscillator bounds, crossover rules, bidirectional reversal, pyramiding ceiling and tick-denominated profit targets. Entry sizing requests 20× current mark-to-market equity, with same-side additions limited to remaining aggregate exposure headroom and quantities rounded down to instrument precision. Reversals close and reopen through separate market orders at the signal-close market. Targets are anchored to each completed entry's average fill; partial entry fills receive their target when that entry completes. Nautilus netting aggregates positions for reporting, while separate entry targets retain lot-level exit prices. The platform supplies fees and margin/liquidation behavior rather than reproducing TradingView margin calls. Full leverage without a stop makes severe drawdown plausible. The required outbox file could not be written because this session permits filesystem reads only; this JSON is returned directly.

Verification Results

The sandbox reports liquidation and -100% return. The specified 20x sizing without a protective stop creates substantial economic risk; assess this in the full backtest. This result does not establish a coding defect.

Backtest Review

Sharpe

-16.58

Total return

-100.00%

Max drawdown

100.00%

Trades

12

Win rate

0.0%

Profit factor

0.00

Primary-bar audit passed; detail records confirm both long and short trades at approximately 20x leverage.

The specified execution adaptation exhausted the account: reported return and drawdown are -100% and 100%, with liquidation recorded on 2024-02-10.

All 12 closed positions lost money; average trade return is -1.150% versus the supplied HYPERLIQUID review floor of +0.15%, and profit factor is zero. QA's liquidation concern is borne out.

The trading sample ends through account exhaustion despite 4,905 available bars. It does not establish that stochastic crosses universally lack an edge.

The optimization contract has no tunable parameters. Reducing leverage or adding a protective stop would change the requested fixed specification.

Outcome Summary

This account-exhausting result applies to the fixed 20x close-fill adaptation, not to the original TradingView margin simulation or stochastic strategies generally.

Backtest review returned abandon because the fixed execution adaptation had negative expectancy and exhausted the account. Optimization and subsequent review stages were not reached; the contract had no tunable parameters.

Trade stochastic crosses in both directions on SOL Hyperliquid 4-hour bars, preserving a 100-tick profit target and no protective stop while adapting execution to close fills and a 20x exposure cap.

The backtest reported a -100% return, 100% maximum drawdown, Sharpe of -16.58, and liquidation on 2024-02-10. All 12 closed positions lost money, with an average trade return of -1.15% and profit factor of zero.

Analysis

How to use Leverage and Margin in PineScript