BtcHyperliquid4hMomentumTrendContinuationLongShort

Hyperliquid BTC 4-Hour Momentum Trend-Continuation, LONG/SHORT (Single-Instrument HYPERLIQUID Perp, Pure OHLCV, Flip-Via-Flat, Fixed-Fractional Sizing, Positive Payoff Geometry — Tests the Untested 4H Middle-Cadence That Could Satisfy BOTH HL's Deep-History AND Holdout-Trade-Density Requirements, Pre-Registered DATA-DEPTH Kill-Switch + Sizing Probe, Fills Long-Short + HL Venue, Tail-Safe, Low-Parameter)

A LONG-SHORT, SINGLE-INSTRUMENT, 4-HOUR momentum / trend-continuation strategy on BTCUSD.HYPERLIQUID. This deliberately targets the ONE cadence not yet ruled out, derived from the exact failure geometry of the prior HL runs: HL is the only clean-sizing venue (BTC/ETH ~90%/64.5%; BINANCE USD-M/COIN-M over-exposure-broken, spot-CASH/multi/options broken, census data-walled), but HL DAILY (deep ~3yr) is too trade-sparse for the 15-day holdout (~15 daily bars -> 0-1 holdout trades, which auto-rejected the daily breakout), while HL 15-MIN has enough bars/day but only ~2 MONTHS of history (2026-03-16+, both majors) -> also unvalidatable. Daily and 15-min each fail a DIFFERENT validation requirement. 4-HOUR is the untested middle ground designed to satisfy BOTH: it is NOT sub-hourly (so NOT inside the confirmed ~2-month sub-hourly wall), and a 15-day holdout spans ~90 4H bars (vs ~15 daily) giving enough holdout trades, while a momentum book holding ~1-3 days generates a few hundred trades over the sample for a valid 3-window walk-forward. The binding UNKNOWN is whether 4H HL BTC history is deep (like daily, ~2023+) or shallow (like 15-min, ~2 months); I pre-register a hard kill-switch on it. Mechanism is asset-matched: BTC trends (the HL BTC daily breakout was clean & positive, PF 1.76), so momentum/continuation fits BTC (whereas mean-reversion fits choppy ETH). LONG/SHORT fills the dominant direction gap (long_only 85.9% vs <=55%) on the PROVEN-clean HL BTC long-short path (TS-mom LS sized 97%); flip-via-flat so the engine never nets opposing fills. Payoff geometry is explicitly CORRECTED from the prior 15-min reversion flaw (avg_win < avg_loss trap): the trend-continuation target/trail must exceed the stop distance net of the ~0.09% HL round-trip so avg_win > avg_loss. Bug-avoiding: pure OHLCV, ONE fixed-fractional size per entry, NO dynamic resizing, leverage 1.0, dual flat guard. PRE-REGISTERED ACCEPTANCE (two gates, to avoid thrashing): (1) DATA-DEPTH — verify 4H HL BTC data spans >= ~2 years AND the 15-day holdout contains >= ~5 trades; if NOT, this confirms the HL sub-daily data wall extends to 4H -> ABANDON & ESCALATE to the data engineer (do NOT iterate). (2) SIZING — avg_position_pct ~<=100% and no physically impossible 4H/daily equity jump; if violated, abandon & escalate as a reproducer. Low parameter count (momentum lookback, trend filter, ATR stop/trail).

Implements the hypothesis by targeting the one HL cadence not yet ruled out. HL daily is deep (~3yr) but too sparse for the 15-day holdout (~15 bars -> 0-1 trades), and HL 15-min has enough bars/day but only ~2 months of history; 4-HOUR is the middle ground that can satisfy BOTH requirements (a 15-day holdout spans ~90 4H bars for enough holdout trades, while a ~1-3 day-hold momentum book yields a few hundred trades over the sample for a valid 3-window walk-forward) AND sits above the confirmed ~2-month sub-hourly data wall. Mechanism is asset-matched: BTC trends cleanly (the HL BTC daily breakout was positive, PF 1.76), so momentum/continuation fits BTC, and LONG/SHORT fills the dominant direction quota gap on the proven-clean HL BTC long-short path (TS-mom LS sized ~97%). Payoff geometry is explicitly corrected from the prior 15m reversion avg_win<avg_loss trap: there is no early fixed take-profit; an ATR trailing stop (3.5x) lets the trend's right tail run while a tighter frozen initial stop (2.5x) caps losses, so avg_win exceeds avg_loss net of the ~0.09% HL round-trip. Construction is defect-avoiding: single-instrument pure OHLCV (no funding subscription, no extra legs, no options), flip-via-flat achieved structurally (should_exit closes to flat and the base engine only opens an entry when flat, so opposing fills are never netted), ONE fixed-fractional size (notional = 0.95 * equity, qty = notional/price) with no dynamic resizing, and leverage left at 1.0 so the engine margin model and in-strategy notional agree. Two pre-registered downstream gates: (1) DATA-DEPTH — if 4H HL BTC data does not span >= ~2 years AND the 15-day holdout contains >= ~5 trades, this confirms the HL sub-daily data wall extends to 4H and the strategy should be abandoned & escalated to the data engineer (do NOT iterate); (2) SIZING — avg_position_pct should be <=~100% with no physically impossible 4H/daily equity jump, else abandon & escalate as an HL over-exposure reproducer.

Abandon for NO EDGE, not for a data wall — the hypothesis's own pre-registered kill-switches both PASSED, so the infrastructure question was answered favorably and need not be re-run. DATA-DEPTH gate: 4H HL BTC data is deep (5057 bars ≈ 2.3 years back to 2024-01, 267 trades, 15-day holdout would span ~90 bars / several trades) — the HYPERLIQUID sub-daily data wall does NOT extend to 4H; this is a useful, reusable finding for FUTURE HL strategies. SIZING gate: avg_position_pct 106% (exposure_fraction 0.95 + MTM, not the over-exposure defect), no impossible equity jumps, metrics_reliable=true, balanced long/short legs — the HL 4H long-short flip-via-flat path sizes cleanly. However, the strategy is a confirmed net loser at base parameters over a large, statistically meaningful 267-trade sample: total_return -19.05%, Sharpe -0.54, profit_factor 0.887, avg_trade_return -$137.5 (≈ -0.14%/trade, NEGATIVE, below trading costs and below the analyst abandon threshold). The payoff geometry was ALREADY corrected (avg_win 2.19x avg_loss) and it still loses because win rate (28.8%) is below the 31.3% geometry breakeven — i.e. the vol-normalized momentum signal has no edge on 4H BTC, and optimization can only re-threshold a vanilla t-stat, not manufacture edge. The single positive period is 2024 bull beta (+18.9%; 2025 -43.6%, 2026 -5.7%), so optimization would curve-fit the 2024 window and fail the 2025-2026 holdout — the identical OOS/holdout/DSR collapse the four prior HL daily/4H trend siblings (BTC/ETH/SOL Donchian, SOL TS-momentum) suffered this session. Not worth 2 hours of optimization: a robustly negative-expectancy base case from a family that uniformly fails post-optimization generalization. Not iterate: there is no code-level bug to fix — the construction (pure OHLCV, flip-via-flat, corrected payoff geometry, clean sizing) is sound; the premise (momentum edge on 4H BTC) simply has no edge. PRESERVED FINDING for the research lead: HL 4H is a validatable, clean-sizing cadence — point a mechanism with a REAL edge at it rather than another vanilla single-asset trend/momentum signal.

Long/short 4-hour momentum / trend-continuation strategy on BTCUSD.HYPERLIQUID, pure OHLCV. The signal is the 18-bar (~3 day) return vol-normalized into a Sharpe-like t-stat score: goes long when score > +0.5 and close > 50-bar SMA, short when score < -0.5 and close < 50-bar SMA. Exits via an ATR trailing stop measured from the running peak/trough (3.5x ATR, lets winners run), a tighter frozen initial ATR stop (2.5x ATR, caps losses), or a momentum reversal (score crossing the exit band or close crossing the SMA against the position). Flips are routed through flat (exit fully, re-enter the opposite side on a later flat bar) so the engine never nets opposing fills. One fixed-fractional position (95% of equity notional) per entry, no dynamic resizing, leverage 1.0.

Pre-registered DATA-DEPTH gate PASSED and is the genuinely valuable finding: ~2.3 years of 4H HL BTC data (5057 bars, back to 2024-01-22), 267 trades — the HYPERLIQUID sub-daily data wall does NOT extend to 4H, so 4H is a viable validatable cadence on HL for FUTURE strategies that actually have an edge.

Pre-registered SIZING gate PASSED: avg_position_pct 106% (exposure_fraction 0.95 + MTM drift, not the BINANCE over-exposure defect), no physically impossible equity jumps (largest daily +18.6% for BTC at 1x), metrics_reliable=true, 0 dropped entries across balanced long (143) + short (124) legs — the HL long-short flip-via-flat path sizes cleanly at 4H.

Healthy trade count (267) over a 2.3-year sample — optimization would be statistically meaningful (not a few-trade noise-fit), and the payoff geometry was correctly designed (avg_win $3757 = 2.19x avg_loss $1716, tail_ratio 1.19).

Negative edge over a large, statistically meaningful sample: total_return -19.05%, Sharpe -0.54, Sortino -0.94, profit_factor 0.887, avg_trade_return -$137.5 (≈ -0.14%/trade, NEGATIVE — below trading costs). This is a robust no-edge result, not a small-sample fluke.

Win rate 28.8% sits below the 31.3% payoff-geometry breakeven; the geometry fix is in place yet the signal still loses, so the momentum t-stat itself has no edge on 4H BTC — optimization can only re-threshold it, not create edge.

Edge is pure 2024 bull beta (annual 2024 +18.9%, 2025 -43.6%, 2026 -5.7%); optimizing would curve-fit the single 2024 window and fail the 2025-2026 holdout — the exact OOS/holdout/DSR collapse the 4 prior HL trend siblings (BTC/ETH/SOL daily, SOL TS-mom) hit this session.

Fee drag is meaningful: commission_pct_of_gross 8.53%, max_drawdown 51%, 13 max consecutive losses.

BtcHyperliquid4hMomentumTrendContinuationLongShort targeted the one untested Hyperliquid cadence — 4-hour — reasoning it could satisfy both the deep-history requirement that the daily books failed and the holdout-trade-density requirement that the 15-minute books failed, and it carried two pre-registered kill-switches to settle the question. Both kill-switches passed: 4H HL BTC data runs ~2.3 years / 5,057 bars / 267 trades, and the long-short flip-via-flat path sized cleanly — a genuinely useful infrastructure finding. But the strategy itself was a robust net loser (-19.05%, PF 0.887, avg_trade_return -$137.5) despite a correctly designed 2.19:1 payoff, because its 28.8% win rate fell below the geometry breakeven and its only good period was 2024 bull beta. The reviewer abandoned it pre-optimization as a no-edge base case from a family that uniformly fails post-optimization generalization, explicitly preserving the finding for the research lead that HL 4H is a validatable, clean-sizing cadence awaiting a mechanism with a real edge.

A correct payoff geometry cannot rescue a signal with no underlying edge — when win rate sits below the geometry breakeven over a large sample, optimization can only re-threshold a vanilla momentum t-stat, not create edge; the reusable win is that HL 4H is a deep, clean-sizing, validatable cadence for a future mechanism that actually has one.

The analyst abandoned it at the backtest-review gate, before optimization, for genuine no-edge rather than a data wall: the vol-normalized momentum signal has no edge on 4H BTC (win rate 28.8% below the 31.3% geometry breakeven, negative expectancy below trading costs over 267 trades), and the only positive period was 2024 bull beta (+18.9%; 2025 -43.6%, 2026 -5.7%), so optimization could only curve-fit 2024 and fail the 2025–2026 holdout.

A long/short, single-instrument, OHLCV-only 4-hour momentum trend-continuation strategy on BTCUSD.HYPERLIQUID (flip-via-flat, ATR initial-stop + trailing-stop for positive payoff geometry, leverage 1.0), deliberately testing the untested 4H middle cadence to satisfy both HL's deep-history and holdout-trade-density needs, while filling the long-short and HL-venue gaps.

Over a large, statistically meaningful sample it was a confirmed net loser: -19.05% total return, Sharpe -0.54, profit factor 0.887, 28.8% win rate over 267 trades (143 long, 124 short), avg_trade_return -$137.5 (~-0.14%/trade), 51% max drawdown — and although the payoff geometry was correctly built (avg_win $3,757 = 2.19x avg_loss $1,716), both pre-registered kill-switches passed: data-depth (5,057 bars / ~2.3 years) and sizing (avg_position_pct 106%, metrics_reliable=true).