Strategies

HyperliquidScheduledResidualRisk tested scheduled long–short residual-volatility allocations across a six-name candidate panel and underwent four iterations. The supplied backtest returned -3.68% with a -0.41 Sharpe across 264 closed positions, while the development-period review separately reported losses across 51 cohorts with both longs and shorts losing money. The strategy was abandoned at backtest review because negative expectancy lacked an evidence-supported repair, so optimization and later stages were not reached. The rejection applied to this tested operationalization, with no conclusion about the source author's unspecified strategy or the withheld holdout.

After one iteration, the strategy tested asymmetric volatility transitions across four Hyperliquid perpetuals. The supplied backtest lost 14.05% with a Sharpe of -2.45 across 97 closed positions. The abandonment review cited a different 78-trade sample and found losses across all instruments and both directions, with no supported repair. The strategy was abandoned before optimization or later reviews.

HyperliquidSequentialDriftPanel tested sequential drift persistence across four perpetuals with a 72-hour holding rule and protective stops, reaching backtest review after one iteration. The supplied backtest returned -33.89% with Sharpe -1.47 across 163 closed trades; the abandonment review cited a different 124-position ledger that also showed negative expectancy. The strategy was abandoned because both directions and all instruments lost without an evidence-supported improvement path. Optimization and later stages were not reached, and no conclusion was drawn about the withheld holdout.

The strategy attempted frozen-channel breakouts on a DOT/LINK/LTC Binance Spot basket with basket-wide liquidation. After one iteration, it was abandoned because required LINK trade ticks were unavailable locally and operator policy barred bulk historical backfill. No backtest or optimization results were available, leaving its trading merit unevaluated.

data_unavailable: no usable source for N1 (no candidate covers the need in full / only partial coverage from: Chen and Zimmermann Open Source Asset Pricing, Obscura OpenAP Signals); N2 (no candidate covers the need in full / only partial coverage from: Kenneth French monthly RF and historical factor archives, Federal Reserve H.15 via FRED TB3MS — alternative only)

Inverse-Collateral Forced-Selling Absorption on COIN-M: buy a Binance COIN-M alt inverse perp at the close of a <=-2-sigma UTC day ONLY when its COIN-M premium sank >=1 sigma below the same coin's USD-M premium that day (the selling came from coin-margined longs), fixed 3-day clock (19 pre-2022 USD_PERP alts, 1-DAY, long-only event panel, 10% per leg, max 6 concurrent, flat ~97% per name)

This strategy tested whether DOGE 4H trends confirmed by the daily trend continue when open interest expands with them, and fade when it contracts. The default backtest was profitable: 382 trades, 0.50% per trade, Sharpe 0.60. Optimization raised the full-history figures to Sharpe 1.07 and 0.83% per trade, with positive walk-forward OOS (Sharpe 0.77 over 11 windows) and a marginally positive holdout that was consistent with OOS. The analyst recommended promotion despite inconclusive significance (t 1.39) and parameter instability, and the strategy is now in paper trading.

This hypothesis tried the factory's most often promoted directional idea, 4H/1D momentum confluence with a flat state when the timeframes disagree, as a fresh long-short test on six OKX swaps that had never had a confluence test. The unweighted average trade cleared the 0.15% floor, but each dollar traded earned only about 0.055%, and commissions were larger than the net profit. One XLM trade accounted for all of the gains, the drawdown was about 64-67%, and three of the six names lost money. The analyst abandoned it at the backtest review after one iteration, and it never reached optimization.

This strategy carried the promoted Bybit 4H volume-confirmed capitulation-absorption rule over unchanged to 15 Hyperliquid alt perps as a fresh test. The backtest reproduced the pre-study: +56.1% over 253 trades, average trade +1.84%, Sharpe 1.47, max drawdown 8.7%, every year positive, and the result did not depend on the two crash days. After one iteration and optimization, the analyst recommended promotion on its economics and OOS/holdout consistency, while noting that statistical significance was not established and that the per-trade edge is decaying in 2026. It has moved to the paper stage.

High-Volume Return Premium on Point-in-Time S&P 500 Stocks: every 20 sessions, go long the 15 members whose last-5-session share volume most exceeds their own prior 50-session norm and short the 15 with the deepest volume drought, excluding the formation-week return extremes, dollar-neutral, fixed 20-session hold (USEQ 1-DAY, long-short cross-section)

ThermostatCmiKdBollReversal ported the FMZ Thermostat system to LINKUSDT.OKX 1H, changing only the venue, sizing and fees. It switched between KD-turn mean reversion in choppy markets and Bollinger breakouts in trending ones, and could always reverse direction. The first backtest was close to a total loss: -98.3% over 1,560 trades, Sharpe -0.92, average trade -0.35% of notional. It lost in 7 of 8 stress windows and in all three volatility regimes. The analyst abandoned it at backtest review for negative gross expectancy, so optimization, the analyst stage after optimization and risk review were never reached.

DevelopedEtfTurnOfMonthBasket tested the promoted turn-of-the-month flow window on a separate universe: four developed-market country and region ETFs, traded long-only on USEQ daily bars with next-open fills. The pre-study expected +0.215% gross per window. In the backtest the 1996-2020 development period gave only +0.043% per window, an average trade of 0.041%, Sharpe 0.05 and a 35.5% drawdown, with negative windows after 2010. The analyst abandoned it at backtest review after one iteration, before optimization, because the window added no return over simply holding the basket on random days and its expectancy was below the USEQ cost floor.

HummingbotWldOkxSwapGridStrike ported hummingbot's GridStrike as a long-only 190-level buy grid on WLDUSDT.OKX at 2x leverage, corrected from an earlier attempt that failed on a spot venue. After 3 iterations, the backtest showed negative expectancy: an average trade return of -0.19% of notional, and in the full report a -15.8% return, Sharpe -0.30 and 39% max drawdown over 426 trades. Most equity swings came from unrealized inventory that tracked WLD's direction rather than from grid profits. The analyst abandoned it at backtest review because the frozen 0.1% take-profit is structurally consumed by costs, so optimization and the later stages (analyst, risk review, promotion) were never reached.

The strategy works as the hypothesis describes. The ledger has 94 closed legs, which make 47 dollar-neutral pairs: each ETH leg is opened the same day as an opposite BTC leg of equal size (0.45 of equity per leg). There are 26 short-ETH pairs and 21 long-ETH pairs, so both directions trade. Most pairs exit on the 14-day clock and none overlap.

This third iteration replaced the earlier inventory stop, which had halted trading for 5.4 years, with a re-arming sleeve-drawdown stop. The band mechanism was finally exercised: 61 fills, within the predicted 30-70. At the contract defaults it lost 14.1%, essentially market beta (benchmark correlation 0.93, negative alpha). The stop tended to sell near lows and re-buy higher. The optimized +78% came from fitted stop and re-entry timing, with 2020 carrying 44.5% of the profit, every sensitivity point sat within one Sharpe standard error of the baseline, and the holdout was inconclusive. The analyst abandoned the strategy for a hard year-consistency failure and the measured absence of the volatility-harvesting premium.