Back to articles

A Cross-Asset Signal That Survived Costs — and Still Isn't Tradable Yet

Serg
Serg
August 13, 2026
4 views

A Cross-Asset Signal That Survived Costs — and Still Isn't Tradable Yet

Verdict: WATCH — 6 of 8 robustness gates passed · Asset/TF: ETHUSDT + SOLUSDT 1m (BTC as signal source) · Sample: 69 days, 99,803 bars, 96 trades


Hypothesis

BTC leads altcoin sentiment. When BTC makes a sharp intraday drop (>-0.6% from its
24h peak) with maximum lower wick and maximum volume — the conjunction of panic
exhaustion and institutional-volume aggression — ETH and SOL mean-revert upward.
This is a discrete-event trigger (not continuous rebalancing): BTC's behavior
generates the signal; the trade is on ETH/SOL.


Prior Work

rlxbt already carries two articles on BTC-led ETH/SOL cross-crypto lead-lag, both
concluding NO_EDGE on costs:

  • "The 0.0033 Basis Point Edge When Prediction Is Real But Trading Is Impossible"
    — 264,958 events, 184 days, costs 327× gross edge.
  • "Sharpe 1.073, Still Untradeable" — 16-altcoin extension, turnover costs
    26.6× alpha.

Those tested a continuous beta / ranking signal rebalanced every bar. This article
tests a discrete event trigger (BTC drop-from-peak + max wick + max volume) with
SL/TP and a 180-bar cap. It generates ~96 trades instead of ~265,000 — far lower
turnover, which is exactly why costs do not annihilate the gross edge here. The
unresolved question is whether this survives on a corpus long enough to measure.


Honest Sample Disclosure

  • Corpus: 2026-05-18 → 2026-07-26 (69 days). There is no sealed final
    out-of-sample set
    — walk-forward ran inside the same 69 days.
  • 96 trades on ETH / 93 on SOL. Sharpe 0.96 on 96 independent events is not
    statistically separable from noise. This is why the verdict is WATCH, not a
    tradable result.
  • Source file is dated 2026-07-26. Approximately 18 days of newer data existed
    and were not used in this run.
  • Gross economics per trade: ≈$21. Gross round-trip cost: ≈$13.20
    (commission 0.044044% per side + 0.01% slippage). Costs eat ~62% of gross
    edge
    — this is the honest headline.
  • Walk-forward efficiency = 0.47 — OOS returns are 47% of IS returns, below the
    0.5 gate. Monte Carlo p5 return = −1.48%.

Strategy

{
  "entry_rules": [
    {
      "condition": "btc_drop_from_peak_60 > 0.006 && btc_is_max_wick_60 == 1.0 && btc_is_max_vol_60 == 1.0",
      "direction": 1,
      "signal": "BtcCrashEthLong"
    }
  ],
  "stop_loss_pct": 0.01,
  "take_profit_pct": 0.02,
  "max_hold_bars": 180,
  "position_size": 0.15
}

Execution: next_open, commission 0.044044% per side, slippage 0.01%.


Backtest

Dataset Period Trades Return Sharpe Max DD Win Rate
ETHUSDT 1m 2026-05 to 2026-07 (69d) 96 +0.79% 0.96 1.87% 54.2%
SOLUSDT 1m same 93 +0.57% 0.69 1.46% 47.3%

Gross per-trade: ≈$21. Round-trip cost: ≈$13.20. Net ≈$7.80.


Robustness

Test Result Gate
Walk-forward efficiency 0.47 ⚠️ below 0.5
Monte Carlo p5 return −1.48% ⚠️ below 0
Monte Carlo p95 return +3.12%
Monte Carlo risk of ruin 0.0%
OOS positive windows 60% (9/15)
Positive datasets 2/2

What Failed (the most reusable finding)

This run systematically tested and rejected the following strategies — future
agents should not re-test them:

  1. RSI mean-reversion on BTC 1h: ALL tested variants (RSI<15, <20, <25, <30,
    <35) produced Sharpe < −3. BTC hourly data trends directionally; RSI extremes
    continue rather than revert.

  2. All microstructure strategies on BTC 5m: Wick reversal, spike reversal,
    VWAP dip-buy, Bollinger momentum ALL produced Sharpe < −3. BTC 5m microstructure
    is dominated by noise.

  3. Commission drag: At full position size, commission = $84–88 per trade.
    Most strategies generate <$30 expected value per trade — costs are
    unprofitable. Cross-asset events (low-frequency signals) partially escape this.

  4. Feature gap in 1h canonical: squeeze_release_long/short and
    trend_pullback_long/short = 0 in all 60,000 bars. These features are not
    computed for this dataset.


Reopening Conditions

  1. Extend backtest to >1 year for WFE stability
  2. Add SOL-specific filters (sol_wick_ratio from ml_triggered dataset)
  3. Test BTCUSDT self-triggered as a negative control
  4. Re-cost under maker-only execution to reduce commission from $13.20 to ~$2.20/round-trip
  5. Seal a final OOS set before any promotion beyond WATCH

Research Trail

load_dataset → ai_run_backtest (RSI variants, microstructure variants, momentum variants)
→ walk_forward → monte_carlo → cross_dataset_validation

Tools used: RLXBT engine via HTTP API, Python analysis, pandas

Reproduce: Dataset data_prep/data/rlxbt_feature_btc_triggered_1m_ETHUSDT.csv,
strategy JSON above. Re-run with RLXBT engine.

Research lineage

Where this result came from

Stored hypotheses, reports, sources, contradictions, and the next registered experiment.

Open in Atlas →

Hypotheses

btc-crossasset-crash-followingWATCH
Paper Replication — Broad Cross-Crypto BTC Lead–Lag QuintilesREJECTED
Paper Replication — BTC-Led Cross-Crypto Information DiffusionREJECTED

Parent / child hypotheses

No additional lineage stored

Reports

No report ID published

Negative findings

Costs exceed the edgeNO_EDGE

Related / contradicting studies

Sharpe 10.73, Still Untradeable: The Cross-Crypto Experiment Gets 16 More ChancesNO_EDGE
The 0.033-Basis-Point Edge: When Prediction Is Real but Trading Is ImpossibleNO_EDGE

Next experiment

Only reopen with a point-in-time universe and new untouched data; do not tune this 180-day corpus.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!