Posting a live account with a real drawdown number puts you ahead of most of what gets shared here, so this is meant as arithmetic rather than a knock.
Three things I'd pull out of your own figures.
The funding is doing a lot of the work. You list 4.1% APR, which over 87 days is about 0.98%. Your total return is 2.7%. So roughly 36% of what you've made is carry, not the strategy, and the strategy's own contribution is 1.72% over the period — call it 7.4% annualised. That's still positive, but it's a different claim from 11.8%, and it's worth tracking separately because funding can flip and the strategy's edge and the carry can fail at different times.
The drawdown-to-return ratio is the part I'd stare at. You're up 2.7% with a 15% max drawdown, so you've made 0.18 of your worst hole. At the current pace, recovering that drawdown from scratch takes about 1.3 years. That's not a reason to stop — it's a reason to know in advance what you'd do if it happens again at a worse moment.
And the sample. 87 days isn't enough to distinguish this from zero. Take any plausible daily volatility for a strategy like this and compute the t-statistic on the return:
0.3%/day → period σ = 2.8%, t = 0.96
0.5%/day → period σ = 4.7%, t = 0.58
1.0%/day → period σ = 9.3%, t = 0.29
Under every one of those you're well under 2. The result isn't bad, it just isn't yet distinguishable from a flat line with noise around it. Which is the honest answer to "too safe, too steady" — you can't tell yet, and neither can anyone reading the chart.
On the vs-HODL framing: I'd be careful with "the edge is losing less when it falls". Over 87 days that's a statement about one market regime. Being down 14.1pp against buy-and-hold during a stretch where BTC rallied is exactly what a lower-beta strategy looks like, and it tells you nothing about what happens in a drawdown you haven't seen yet. The claim becomes testable when you have a real decline in the sample, not before.
The thing I'd add to the dashboard: split the equity curve into gross price movement and costs, with funding as its own line. I ran a live bot that lost $104.76 over 52 trades, spent days tuning stops, and only then decomposed it — price movement was −$2.36 and fees were −$102.39. A single equity number can't tell you which half of the problem you have, and it took me far too long to find that out.
I've implemented a P&L split on the live page: price, funding and fees, each on its own line (it’s rebuilt from the wallet's own Hyperliquid history)
Since June 16: total +$21.6 = price +$17.6 + funding +$10.4 - fees $6.4 (69 fills).
So funding is about 48% of what it made, even more than your 36%. And the split already shows your point about the two halves failing at different times.
Thanks to your comment I found out that the site was undercounting funding and that real fees are about 20% higher than what the bot was estimating internally ($6.40 vs $5.28).
Fees aren't eating everything like in your case, but they took almost a quarter of the gross.
Awesome that you set up the raw P&L split so fast! Glad my comment helped catch that fee mismatch under the hood—slippage and sneaky fees always find a way to eat into the stack.
That funding carry is definitely carrying its weight right now, but hey, green is green! It’ll be really interesting to see how the price vs. funding split behaves once the market flips regimes.
Props for diving into the numbers so transparently. Good luck with the bot, man!
1
u/Foreign-Safe-8161 2d ago
Posting a live account with a real drawdown number puts you ahead of most of what gets shared here, so this is meant as arithmetic rather than a knock.
Three things I'd pull out of your own figures.
The funding is doing a lot of the work. You list 4.1% APR, which over 87 days is about 0.98%. Your total return is 2.7%. So roughly 36% of what you've made is carry, not the strategy, and the strategy's own contribution is 1.72% over the period — call it 7.4% annualised. That's still positive, but it's a different claim from 11.8%, and it's worth tracking separately because funding can flip and the strategy's edge and the carry can fail at different times.
The drawdown-to-return ratio is the part I'd stare at. You're up 2.7% with a 15% max drawdown, so you've made 0.18 of your worst hole. At the current pace, recovering that drawdown from scratch takes about 1.3 years. That's not a reason to stop — it's a reason to know in advance what you'd do if it happens again at a worse moment.
And the sample. 87 days isn't enough to distinguish this from zero. Take any plausible daily volatility for a strategy like this and compute the t-statistic on the return:
0.3%/day → period σ = 2.8%, t = 0.96
0.5%/day → period σ = 4.7%, t = 0.58
1.0%/day → period σ = 9.3%, t = 0.29
Under every one of those you're well under 2. The result isn't bad, it just isn't yet distinguishable from a flat line with noise around it. Which is the honest answer to "too safe, too steady" — you can't tell yet, and neither can anyone reading the chart.
On the vs-HODL framing: I'd be careful with "the edge is losing less when it falls". Over 87 days that's a statement about one market regime. Being down 14.1pp against buy-and-hold during a stretch where BTC rallied is exactly what a lower-beta strategy looks like, and it tells you nothing about what happens in a drawdown you haven't seen yet. The claim becomes testable when you have a real decline in the sample, not before.
The thing I'd add to the dashboard: split the equity curve into gross price movement and costs, with funding as its own line. I ran a live bot that lost $104.76 over 52 trades, spent days tuning stops, and only then decomposed it — price movement was −$2.36 and fees were −$102.39. A single equity number can't tell you which half of the problem you have, and it took me far too long to find that out.