Home / Strategies / ​​Stable (STABLE)
Crypto · strategy report

Does anything beat buy & hold on ​​Stable (STABLE)?

Every setup we tested on ​​Stable (STABLE) — ranked out-of-sample, corrected for multiple testing, and forward-tracked in public from the day this page published. The honest answer is the headline.

NOTHING BEAT BUY-AND-HOLD

No setup beat simply holding once tested honestly. We say so plainly.

Its best setup trailed buy-and-hold out-of-sample. Buy-and-hold benchmark: -81.3% CAGR over 1.6 years (-75.6% CAGR in the out-of-sample window).

Educational research from historical backtests — not investment advice. Past performance does not predict future results.

​​Stable: Nothing Beat Buy-and-Hold, and We Checked Everything

For ​​Stable, we ran 197 indicator configurations through the same pipeline we apply to every asset, and none cleared the bar. This is a common outcome in crypto, where simply holding STABLE produced a buy-and-hold CAGR of -81.3%% — alongside a maximum drawdown of -97.6%%, which is the price of admission. When the baseline compounds that hard, a timing rule has to be genuinely predictive, not just lucky during one bull run, to add anything. In a market that trades around the clock and moves violently, most rules here simply stepped out of moves that holding captured for free.

The best-looking candidate was Ehlers SuperSmoother on the daily timeframe, posting an out-of-sample Sharpe of -1.73 against a multiple-testing hurdle of 4.6. That hurdle exists because picking the top result from 197 attempts manufactures apparent skill by construction. Only 14.3%% of setups beat holding at all, and the leader's edge did not hold up across 0.5 years of unseen data. Read this as evidence, not prophecy: crypto market structure shifts quickly, past performance does not predict future results, and a verdict of nothing today is a finding about history, not a forecast.

Every figure above is computed from our own backtests — nothing is estimated or invented. Hypothetical results; not investment advice.

Failure exhibit

The least-bad setups — shown with their failure numbers

Nothing here earned a verdict — these are the best of a losing field, published so you can see exactly how "best" still failed.

#1 · Trend · Daily

Ehlers SuperSmoother

Mechanical rule (exactly as backtested): Long while price is above Ehlers' 2-pole SuperSmoother filter (low lag, low noise). Signals are evaluated at daily-bar close, the position changes on the NEXT bar, 0.08% cost per side, long/flat only — no leverage, no shorting.

-97.6%
Total return
-2.14
Sharpe
-97.6%
Max DD
7.5%
Win rate
40
Trades
-8.4%
vs B&H

Out-of-sample (last ~30% of the window, never used to pick this setup): Sharpe -1.73 · alpha -18.7% · 11 trades over 0.5 yrs.

#2 · Trend · Daily

Donchian 10 Break

Mechanical rule (exactly as backtested): VARIANT — 10-bar Donchian breakout. Signals are evaluated at daily-bar close, the position changes on the NEXT bar, 0.08% cost per side, long/flat only — no leverage, no shorting.

-93.8%
Total return
-1.89
Sharpe
-94.3%
Max DD
7.1%
Win rate
70
Trades
-0.4%
vs B&H

Out-of-sample (last ~30% of the window, never used to pick this setup): Sharpe -3.0 · alpha -20.3% · 36 trades over 0.5 yrs.

Forward test

Since publication — including if it loses

0.0%
the published setup, since 2026-07-02 (0 market days)
0.0%
buy & hold, same window

The forward record is just getting started — the gap between the two is the honest score. Marked to market nightly from real prices, rules frozen at publication, as of 2024-12-29. Currently LONG.

How this verdict was computed (mode: out-of-sample)

We tested 197 setups (indicator × parameters × timeframe) on ​​Stable (STABLE). Only setups with ≥30 trades qualify (7 did). Setups are ranked by out-of-sample Sharpe — the last ~30% of history, which standard-parameter rules never saw during selection. Because picking the best of 197 tries mines even the holdout, the VALIDATED verdict additionally requires the top setup’s OOS Sharpe to clear a selection hurdle of 4.6 (√(2 ln N)/√T) AND positive alpha in both windows. Of the eligible setups, 14.3% had positive out-of-sample alpha (median OOS Sharpe -2.5) — the table below is truncated, but this summary covers all of them. Full recipe: methodology · the engine’s contract lives in the repo as STRATEGY_METHODOLOGY.md.

Ranked table

Top 2 of 7 eligible setups

Ranked by out-of-sample Sharpe. Full + out-of-sample columns, costs included. Hypothetical.

#SetupTFTotal retSharpeMax DDWinTradesα vs B&HOOS SharpeOOS αOOS trades
1Ehlers SuperSmootherDaily-97.6%-2.14-97.6%7.5%40-8.4%-1.73-18.7%11
2Donchian 10 BreakDaily-93.8%-1.89-94.3%7.1%70-0.4%-3.0-20.3%36

Hypothetical backtests with 0.08%/side costs. Not investment advice — see the full disclaimer.

Read this before acting on anything

These are historical backtests of mechanical rules. They are educational research, not investment advice, not a recommendation, and not tailored to you. Educational information only — not investment advice. Hypothetical backtested results; past performance does not guarantee future results. Trading involves risk of loss.

Keep digging