INCONCLUSIVE

20-day breakout on 2× volume

A breakout without volume is a trap: price pierces the high, everyone piles in, and the move dies because there was no money behind it. Doubled volume is the confirmation that an institution is on the other side.

Measured in crypto — Binance spot · 540 pairs, delisted ones included · 0.2% per round trip

Net per trade

+0.14%

after fees

The fee is charged on both legs: every trade pays to open and pays to close.

Stalled at

costs

the fee eats more than half of the gross edge

Worst drawdown

not measured

Equity was not measured for this claim.

Timeframe

1 day

The time grid this was measured on. The same technique on a coarser or finer grid is a different measurement, and can earn a different verdict.

invariance
costs
placebo
benchmark
out of sample
multiple testing

The technique against chance

Same number of trades, same holding time, same assets — only the dates were drawn at random.

The average trade and the typical one

The mean sits above the median: the lottery signature — the typical trade loses and a rare handful pays for everything.

What was measured

We coded the rule exactly as it is described and let it trade on its own from 2017-08-17 to 2026-07-28. It found trades in 105 coins, 3,121 in total. Each one enters and exits at the price that existed on that day — the program never sees what comes next, which is the most common mistake people make testing strategies at home. Wherever the description was ambiguous we took the reading least favourable to the technique; whatever was left open is stated in the hypothesis, at the foot of this page.

How many of those trades actually count

Only 266 of the 3,121. Cryptocurrencies rise and fall almost in unison, so the same rule fires on dozens of coins on the same day — and that is one bet repeated, not dozens of different bets. Counting them all separately is the trick that makes a bad test look impressive.

What it paid, before any deductions

+0.34% per trade. This is the number the technique claims, and the only one on this page that has not yet been through a single control.

Where it stalled · the broker's fee

We subtract the fee the broker charges to open and to close each trade — every trade pays on both legs. What is left after the fee is too small to be told apart from zero.

What this result does NOT say

For an edge to be assertable here it would have to reach 4.54% per trade — that is the size that survives this archive's multiple-testing correction, and it rises as the archive grows. So INCONCLUSIVE means “we found nothing above that size”, and never “it cannot possibly work”. The instrument is far more sensitive than that: on synthetic data, with a clean effect, it separates from 0.69% upwards. The distance between the two numbers is the price of a real market and the price of publishing many claims. The difference matters, and it is the rule of this house: the card confronts the claim, never the person who made it.

What this card does not measure

Every verdict holds for the conditions it was measured under. These are this card's — and outside them the result does not apply.

One market, one universe: Measured on 105 spot cryptocurrency pairs, delisted ones included. It says nothing about futures, equities or indices, nor about how the same technique behaves in another market.
One window of time, not every window: The measured period runs from 2017-08-17 to 2026-07-28. A market moves through regimes, and a technique can work in one and fail in another — the card measures the regimes that fit inside this window, not the ones still to come.
One cost structure: The cost charged is 0.10% per leg, in and out. Anyone paying more than that gets a worse result, and anyone paying less gets a better one — the verdict holds for this fee.
One exit rule: The trade was closed by: the auditor's fixed horizon (10 bars). The same entry measured with a different exit is a different strategy, and can earn a different verdict — it happens in this archive.
The number of trades is not the sample size: There are 3,121 trades, but only 266 independent market episodes: a single move fires the technique across dozens of assets at once, and counting those as separate observations inflates any result. It is the smaller number that governs the arithmetic. With 266 episodes, what the data supports is a range from -2.12% to +2.80% per trade — the published average is the centre of it, not the exact measurement.
Daily bars: Measured at the daily close. Nothing here measures what happens inside the day, and an intraday technique is not auditable with this data.

Numbers and reproducibility

The six controls

control	status	t	threshold	episodes
invariance	passed	—	—	—
costs	inconclusive	0.11	1.97	266
placebo	inconclusive	0.05	1.97	266
benchmark	passed	—	—	—
out of sample	inconclusive	—	—	—
multiple testing	inconclusive	—	—	—

invariance3121 signals across 140496 bars
costsgross +0.343% · cost 0.200% · net +0.143% (t=0.11)
placeboactual +0.143% · placebo +0.076% · excess +0.066% ± 1.302% (t=0.05 against a threshold of 1.97, 266 real groups, 156,050 sham dates, draw error ±0.046%) — the status flips inside the placebo's own Monte Carlo error
benchmarktechnique +0.14% · buy and hold (same horizon) -0.11% · excess +0.25%
out of sampleasset half A: -0.683% (t=-0.56, 237 groups) · asset half B: +1.007% (t=0.69, 234 groups) · earlier period: +1.936% (t=1.06, 170 groups) · recent period: -1.652% (t=-1.43, 97 groups)
multiple testing1 variation(s) tested · t=0.11 across 266 episodes (equivalent to t=0.11) · p≈0.9096 · false positives expected by chance ≈ 0.91

Reproducibility

period: 2017-08-17 to 2026-07-28
assets that traded: 105
variations tested before this one: 1
gross per trade: +0.34%
net per trade: +0.14%
exit rule: the auditor's fixed horizon (10 bars)
horizon bars: 10
fee per leg: 0.001
episode days: 10
channel period: 20
volume factor: 2.0

Binance spot klines (delisted pairs included) · collected from 2026-07-27 23:31 to 2026-07-27 23:31 · 106 assets · 140,496 bars · 2017-08-17 to 2026-07-28

Seed not recorded: audits before 2026-07-29 used 20260728 by convention in the code, and the value is not in the record.

Hypothesis, filed before the result

This is the archive's first CONDITIONAL claim: it does not say breakouts work, it says breakouts WITH volume work and without volume do not. The plain breakout has already come out INCONCLUSIVE, dying at the placebo. Specific prediction: the volume filter does not change the verdict, and its main effect will be to cut the n — which WORSENS the error bar instead of improving the signal. If I am wrong, the pair (with filter × without) is the cleanest evidence this archive will ever have that volume informs something.

the filing date is not in this audit's record

The original, as it was filed

Esta é a primeira alegação CONDICIONAL do corpus: não diz que rompimento funciona, diz que rompimento COM volume funciona e sem volume não. O rompimento simples já saiu INCONCLUSIVO, morrendo no placebo. Previsão específica: o filtro de volume não muda o veredito, e o efeito principal dele será cortar o n — o que PIORA a barra de erro em vez de melhorar o sinal. Se eu estiver errado, o par (com filtro × sem filtro) é a evidência mais limpa que o corpus vai ter de que volume informa algo.

Pre-registration exists to keep prediction apart from rationalisation: written after the number, every hypothesis is right.

Earlier audits of the same technique

Each variation an author teaches enters as its own test, so that whatever might work in the strategy gets covered. The verdict held in all of them.

2026-08-03INCONCLUSIVEopen ↗
2026-08-03INCONCLUSIVEopen ↗
2026-07-28INCONCLUSIVEopen ↗
2026-07-28INCONCLUSIVEopen ↗
2026-07-28INCONCLUSIVEopen ↗
this measurement →INCONCLUSIVE