After months of work, I’ve leveraged AI to craft 3 BTC futures quant signals, and today they’re officially open for subscription.
Each strategy has its own role: · SYS03 EMA Triple Pulse — Tracks mid-term trend waves, with 54 trades over the past year, profit factor of 1.46 · SYS05 Volatility Energy Breakout — Bollinger Bands + Keltner Double Compression, capturing energy explosions, profit factor of 1.49 · SYS06 RSI Divergence Reversal — Only 15 trades in the past year, win rate of 66.67%, profit factor of 3.57, with a max drawdown of just 0.25%
All backtested on TradingView, so you can replicate the numbers yourself, no need to take my word for it.
Each signal includes: ✓ Real-time annotations for entry direction + SL / TP levels ✓ TradingView alerts pushed directly, getting notified of entry price / stop-loss / take-profit without having to watch the charts ✓ Backtest version for historical performance verification
Background: Former KOL team & CEX researcher, now independently developing trading systems.
If you're interested, DM me on X (Twitter) to learn about the subscription options, spots are limited, first come, first served.
I spent three years personally testing the difference between intuition-driven and data-driven trading. The conclusion is: it's not that data is better than intuition, but rather that data can tell you when your intuition is right.
At first, I traded purely on gut feeling; when I won, I thought I had a gift, and when I lost, I felt unlucky. I had no idea when I was right or wrong. Later, I started logging all my trades, categorizing backtests, and using data to analyze my decisions.
I discovered something interesting: my intuition was indeed quite accurate under certain market structures, but in other types of markets, I was almost always wrong. Now, my approach is to use intuition to find direction and validate with data whether it’s worth making a move. Intuition is the starting point, data is the endpoint; both are necessary.
The market's always buzzing, and there are chances popping up every week. But your mindset is your most crucial asset.
When your mindset's off — everything looks like an opportunity, but in reality, it's just a trap. When your mindset's steady — when opportunities arise, you can see them clearly.
Get a good night's sleep, and we’ll hit it again tomorrow.
I've seen the priciest emotion, and it's called betting against the market. After getting stopped out, the price instantly rebounded, and I was holding my breath, finding any spot to jump back in, only to see it really tank this time. I missed out on a whole wave of movement, and the more I watched, the worse it felt. I forced myself to find a reason to enter, and ended up getting in at the peak. I've experienced both situations, and in just a day or two, I gave back the profits I made the previous week. The market doesn't care how much you've lost, or that you've missed out; it won't change direction just because you're angry.
The only consequence of betting against the market is that your emotional cost is paid by you. Every time I feel like making an emotional trade, I now do one thing: I close the trading app, find something else to do, and wait for the emotions to pass before making any moves.
Now that BTC has suddenly pumped 5%, what's your first reaction?
A. FOMO in right away, don’t want to miss out B. Wait for a pullback before jumping in C. Check the volume first, then decide D. Sit tight, waiting for system signals
There’s no standard answer, but your choice will reveal what kind of trader you are.
Drop your answer in the comments and I'll analyze it.
It took me a long time to realize: not every strategy suits everyone. Some folks thrive on day trading, making dozens of quick in-and-out trades daily. Others excel at trend following, holding a single position for weeks, weathering the volatility. Different strategies require different personalities, time commitments, and psychological resilience.
I spent two years hitting walls with other people's strategies before I found my own sweet spot: mid-cycle quantitative trend following, making 10-15 trades a month, with a max single trade risk of 1.5%.
Within this framework, I can execute consistently without losing sleep over short-term fluctuations, and I truly understand the logic behind each trade. Finding your own boundaries is more important than discovering the strongest strategy.
Someone said: "I always end up getting liquidated, or I'm on the verge of it. I just want to learn from you."
That statement got me thinking for a while.
Because I've walked that path too. The feeling of going to zero time and time again, and then telling myself, "next time for sure," I totally get it.
But when he said, "not being so greedy, wanting to learn" — In this market filled with leverage dreams, anyone who can say that has already won half the battle in mindset.
The ones who truly survive in the market, are never the smartest or the most daring to gamble.
It's the most low-key, the one who’s willing to admit they can be wrong.
If you're on the journey too, drop a comment and let me know where you're stuck.
A lot of folks think that quant traders just stare at screens all day watching prices. In reality, it's totally the opposite.
My daily routine looks like this: I wake up, take a quick glance at the strategy’s logs, check if any signals were triggered last night and if everything executed smoothly. That takes about 10 minutes. Most of my day isn’t spent watching the charts, but rather researching: new signal logic, improving backtesting frameworks, and optimizing position management.
Throughout this whole process, I might not even open a candlestick chart once.
The core of quant trading isn’t about staring at the market more often; it’s about building a reliable system that you can trust, and then letting it run its course.
At the beginning of 2024, BTC surged around 58,000 with high volume.
A friend of mine checks the charts every day and keeps telling me, "Just wait, wait for clearer signals."
When it hit 62,000: "Feels too fast, waiting for a pullback." When it hit 68,000: "I'll jump in after the pullback, no rush." When it hit 73,000: He couldn't hold back anymore and chased it.
Then BTC started to pull back, dropping to 60,000.
He said he didn't lose money— What he lost was: the chance he saw at 58,000, but because he kept waiting for a "more certain signal," he missed the best entry.
I asked him: What are you waiting for? He said: Waiting for a signal that won't fail. I replied: That kind of signal doesn't exist.
In trading, waiting for "more certainty" often leads to "higher costs."
A lot of folks ask me: which is better, quant or manual trading?
My answer: it depends on who you are.
If you can do the following: ✓ Stick to your stop-loss like a pro ✓ Keep emotions out of your decisions ✓ Maintain discipline over the long haul
→ Manual trading can work for you too.
But if you catch yourself: ✗ Always saying 'just one more wait' before hitting that stop-loss ✗ Doubling down when you win and trying to chase losses when you lose ✗ FOMO-ing into trades because others are making bank
→ You need a system to keep you in check.
Quant isn't about being smarter; it's about being disciplined.
Overall, BTC is showing a consolidation pattern at high levels this week. Volume is gradually shrinking, indicating that both bulls and bears are on standby.
Typically, this kind of formation can end in two ways: 1. Volume suddenly spikes → direction is chosen 2. Continued sideways action until an external catalyst appears
Currently, my take is: stay observant until the direction is clear.
Once confirmed, that's the easiest way to play it.
Out of all the technical indicators, the one I trust the most is the volume. Price can be pushed around in the short term by a small amount of capital, creating fake breakouts and breakdowns; but volume is tough to fake, it represents the real participation and intent in the market. A few simple rules: if the price is up but volume is down, it means fewer people are following in, indicating weak momentum, so watch out. If the price is down but volume is also down, it suggests that folks aren't in a rush to sell, the selling pressure isn't heavy, which might indicate a technical adjustment rather than a trend reversal. When price breaks through key levels with strong volume, it shows there's real force behind it, making this kind of breakout way more reliable than one with low volume. Volume is the thermometer of the market, price is the symptom, and volume is the underlying cause.
After every trade wraps up, whether it's a win or a loss, I stick to the same routine: jot down three lines.
First line: Why did I enter the trade? What was the signal, and which conditions were met? Second line: How did the execution go? Did I stray from the rules, and what was my emotional state? Third line: Was this result due to the strategy functioning normally, or were there random factors at play? These three lines take no more than five minutes, but I compile them weekly to spot patterns that are usually hidden—
For example, some signals have a much higher success rate than others, or results from entering trades in a certain emotional state are particularly poor. Reviewing trades isn't just about reflection; it's about data collection.
A lot of folks use RSI like this: sell when it goes over 70, buy when it drops below 30. Sounds logical, but this approach can lead to losses because in trending markets, RSI can stay above 70 for a long, long time.
Indicators like RSI and MACD should be seen as filters, not signal generators. What I mean is: you already have your entry logic—like when the price hits support or aligns with a certain pattern—and then you use RSI for an extra confirmation: is it currently in an oversold state?
If it is, it boosts your entry certainty. It's not that you buy just because RSI is oversold, but because it aligns with your entry logic, and RSI being oversold further confirms it.
The two may seem similar, but the logic is completely different. The first is indicator-driven, while the latter is strategy-driven.