A Cross-Asset Signal That Survived Costs — and Still Isn't Tradable Yet
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:
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.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.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.Feature gap in 1h canonical:
squeeze_release_long/shortandtrend_pullback_long/short= 0 in all 60,000 bars. These features are not
computed for this dataset.
Reopening Conditions
- Extend backtest to >1 year for WFE stability
- Add SOL-specific filters (sol_wick_ratio from ml_triggered dataset)
- Test BTCUSDT self-triggered as a negative control
- Re-cost under maker-only execution to reduce commission from $13.20 to ~$2.20/round-trip
- 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.
Hypotheses
Parent / child hypotheses
No additional lineage stored
Reports
No report ID published
Academic sources
Negative findings
Related / contradicting studies
Next experiment
Only reopen with a point-in-time universe and new untouched data; do not tune this 180-day corpus.
Comments (0)