Can the Dual Currency Win Strategy Really Weather Bull and Bear Markets? A 6-Year Backtest Provides the Answer

marsbitDipublikasikan tanggal 2026-02-27Terakhir diperbarui pada 2026-02-27

Abstrak

"Can the Dual Currency Win (Wheel Strategy) truly weather bull and bear markets? A 6-year backtest (2020-2026) on Bitcoin and Ethereum provides the answer. The study compared two approaches: the 'Standard Rolling Strike' method, which dynamically sells covered calls at 105% of the current spot price, and the 'Fixed Anchor' method, which stubbornly sells calls at the original, higher cost basis after a drop, refusing to sell at a loss. Key findings reveal a significant performance gap. The Standard method, while sacrificing some upside, demonstrated superior risk-adjusted returns. For a 50/50 BTC/ETH portfolio, it achieved a +1347.32% total return with a -49.9% max drawdown and a Sharpe Ratio of 0.983, outperforming both Buy & Hold (+1665.52%, -77.8% drawdown, 0.85 Sharpe) on risk metrics and crushing the Fixed Anchor method (+592.77%, -61.8% drawdown, 0.766 Sharpe). The data shows the Standard strategy's strength lies in its dynamic adjustment mechanism, continuously resetting its strike price to balance income generation with participation in bullish trends. Conversely, the Fixed Anchor strategy's poor performance highlights the costly pitfall of the 'anchoring bias'—the human tendency to fixate on the entry price. This psychological trap cripples the ability to collect meaningful premium during bear markets and causes investors to miss subsequent bull runs when positions are called away at breakeven. The conclusion is clear: discipline and adaptability are far more valua...

Author: Michel Athayde

Can the Dual Currency Win Strategy Really Weather Bull and Bear Markets?

Using real market data from 2020-2026 for backtesting, we discovered:

Even with the same Dual Currency Win strategy, just by changing how the Calls are sold, the final profit difference can be nearly double.

The data tells us the problem isn't the strategy, it's human nature.

In the crypto market, the "Dual Currency Win" (Wheel Strategy) is often seen as a tool for collecting rent through bull and bear markets. But how do different underlying execution logics reshape long-term profit distribution?

To find the truth, we backtested Bitcoin and Ethereum over a complete bull-bear cycle from 2020-2026. In this sample, which includes crashes and an epic bull market, we compared two截然不同的双币赢玩法:

  • Standard Dual Currency Win (Rolling Strike): Follows the market. After taking delivery of the spot asset, each time a Covered Call is sold dynamically at 105% of the current price.

  • Break-even Type Dual Currency Win (Fixed Anchor): Anchors to cost. Once taking delivery at a high price, no matter how far the price falls, it stubbornly sells Calls at the "last delivery strike price," refusing to give up the chips until breaking even.

This is no longer a simple contest of "selling strategy vs. holding spot," but a deep test of "how trading psychology changes long-term profit distribution."

Core Data: Re-evaluating Risk and Return

(Note: Backtest span 2020-2026, Puts priced at 30% annualized, Calls at 25% annualized, 7-day cycles)

Investment Strategy Total Return Annualized (CAGR) Max Drawdown Sharpe Ratio
BTC HODL (Buy & Hold) +1133.73% 51.95% 0.83
BTC Standard (Rolling) +859.43% 45.72% -42.74% 0.929
BTC Break-even (Fixed) +558.81% 36.88% -61.19% 0.783
--- --- --- --- ---
ETH HODL (Buy & Hold) +2197.31% 68.52% -79.30% 0.87
ETH Standard (Rolling) +1835.21% 63.78% -54.27% 0.971
ETH Break-even (Fixed) +626.74% 39.13% -64.87% 0.724
--- --- --- --- ---
50/50 HODL Portfolio +1665.52% 61.30% -77.80% 0.85
50/50 Standard Portfolio +1347.32% 56.05% -49.90% 0.983
50/50 Break-even Portfolio +592.77% 38.03% -61.80% 0.766

Faced with this real data, we need to re-examine two core propositions in trading.

The Risk-Return Balancing Act of the Standard Dual Currency Win

Many mistakenly believed the standard strategy would severely underperform in bull markets, but the data proves that with just a 5% upside buffer (spot price * 1.05), it exhibits极强的 risk-return balancing ability over a full cycle.

In the 50/50 portfolio, its Sharpe Ratio (0.983) thoroughly crushed buy-and-hold (0.85) and drastically compressed the nearly -78% abysmal drawdown to -49.9%.

Its advantage doesn't come from predicting the market, but from the mechanism of "continuously dynamically raising the strike price."

With every price change, the standard version relentlessly adjusts its target. Rolling本质上是在牛市中不断“重置成本”,而 Fixed Anchor 却是在不断“确认错误”. The standard version sacrifices a极小部分 of potential暴利上限,换取来了平滑资金曲线的巨大战略纵深.

"Anchoring to Cost" is the Most Expensive Psychological Placebo

The most thought-provoking part of the data is the comprehensive failure of the "Break-even (Fixed Anchor)" type. It fell far short of the standard version in both return and drawdown control.

This exposes the most common weakness in human trading psychology: Anchoring Effect. If you took delivery at a high of 60k, and stubbornly hang a Call at 60k when the price drops to 30k, you not only lose the "bleeding stop" ability of option premiums during the long bear market, but also risk having your chips called away at 60k during a V-shaped market reversal, completely missing the subsequent main upward浪.

The break-even strategy seems conservative, but it's actually using time to fight the trend. And in a trend-driven market, time is often on the side of the trend. Obsessing over "not selling at a loss" is ironically the fastest way to perfectly miss out on major cycle红利.

Conclusion

Markets are full of volatility, but data doesn't lie.

In trending assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum, the real risk is not drawdown, but being limited on the upside by your own psychological anchor.

The standard Dual Currency Win tells us:

As long as you keep adjusting dynamically and rolling continuously, a selling strategy can also coexist with the trend.

And the break-even strategy reminds us:

The market won't change direction because of your cost basis.

Discipline is far more important than breaking even.

Pertanyaan Terkait

QWhat is the main finding of the 6-year backtest (2020-2026) comparing the two versions of the Wheel Strategy?

AThe backtest revealed that the standard 'Rolling Strike' version significantly outperformed the 'Fixed Anchor' version, with the performance gap being nearly double in some cases. The key difference lies not in the strategy itself, but in the human psychology of anchoring to a cost basis.

QHow does the 'Rolling Strike' (Standard) version of the Wheel Strategy manage risk and return compared to simply holding the asset (Buy & Hold)?

AThe 'Rolling Strike' version demonstrated superior risk-adjusted returns. For the 50/50 portfolio, it achieved a higher Sharpe Ratio (0.983 vs 0.85 for Buy & Hold) and significantly reduced the maximum drawdown (-49.9% vs -77.8% for Buy & Hold), while still capturing substantial upside.

QWhy did the 'Fixed Anchor' version of the strategy perform poorly in the backtest?

AThe 'Fixed Anchor' strategy performed poorly because it falls victim to the 'anchoring effect' in behavioral finance. By stubbornly selling calls at the original, higher cost basis during a bear market, it loses the ability to collect meaningful premium ('stop the bleeding') and risks having the asset called away at the break-even point, missing out on a subsequent major bull run.

QAccording to the article, what is the most significant risk when investing in trend assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum using such strategies?

AThe most significant risk is not the price drawdown itself, but the psychological limitation of one's upside potential by being anchored to a specific cost price, which can cause an investor to miss out on major market trends.

QWhat is the core lesson about discipline from the article's conclusion?

AThe core lesson is that maintaining discipline by dynamically adjusting and rolling positions (as in the standard version) is far more important than the psychological desire to simply 'break even' on a trade. The market will not change direction based on an individual's cost basis.

Bacaan Terkait

Bank Italia Tidak Melihat Keunggulan Sistemik Stablecoin dalam Transfer

Studi Bank Italia menunjukkan bahwa stablecoin tidak memberikan keunggulan sistemik yang berkelanjutan dalam hal biaya dan kecepatan transfer uang. Semua keuntungan hilang akibat biaya untuk deposit dan penarikan ke/dari fiat serta proses dalam infrastruktur pembayaran lokal. Peneliti membandingkan transfer 200 USDC di 10 koridor bilateral antara Italia dengan Brasil, Argentina, Jepang, UEA, dan Afrika Selatan. Metriknya adalah biaya total dan waktu penyelesaian dibandingkan layanan uang standar. Biaya akhir transfer stablecoin bervariasi dari 0,3% hingga hampir 9%, tergantung arahnya. Di koridor dengan sistem pembayaran instan, penyelesaian membutuhkan waktu kurang dari 20 menit. Sementara di daerah tanpa infrastruktur tersebut, proses memakan waktu satu hingga dua hari kerja. Biaya dan penundaan utama dikaitkan dengan pertukaran dan konversi mata uang, serta kualitas infrastruktur lokal. Komisi blockchain bukan faktor utama. Rata-rata biaya transfer uang global adalah 6,65%. Di sebagian besar koridor yang diteliti, stablecoin lebih murah dari level ini, namun dibandingkan dengan Wise, stablecoin hanya lebih unggul di tiga dari tujuh rute yang sebanding. Penulis berpendapat efeknya akan lebih terasa jika stablecoin bisa dibelanjakan langsung untuk barang/jasa tanpa konversi ke mata uang lokal. Mereka juga mencatat bahwa rezim regulasi yang melarang tidak menghilangkan permintaan akan "koin stabil", dan aturan yang terlalu ketat justru mempersulit penggunaan oleh klien ritel.

cryptonews.ru2j yang lalu

Bank Italia Tidak Melihat Keunggulan Sistemik Stablecoin dalam Transfer

cryptonews.ru2j yang lalu

Boom Bitcoin Memanas: Pernyataan Baru Saylor Picu Spekulasi Pembelian

Ketua Eksekutif MicroStrategy Inc., Michael Saylor, kembali memicu spekulasi pembelian Bitcoin baru perusahaan setelah memposting pesan "Bitcoin Drive engaged" pada 2 Agustus. Postingan hari Minggu ini disertai dengan pelacak pembelian biasa MicroStrategy, yang sejalan dengan praktik Saylor memberi sinyal perubahan treasury sebelum laporan mingguan. Laporan Saylor menunjukkan bahwa cadangan Bitcoin MicroStrategy adalah 843.775 BTC dengan nilai pasar sekitar $53,25 miliar. Dua penjualan Bitcoin baru-baru ini, total 3.588 BTC, telah mengurangi cadangan dari 847.363 BTC. Penjualan ini, menurut pengajuan SEC, ditujukan untuk mendanai pembayaran saham preferen dan menambah cadangan dolar AS. Perusahaan juga dilaporkan tidak melakukan pembelian Bitcoin dalam minggu yang berakhir 26 Juli, sambil meningkatkan cadangan dolar AS menjadi sekitar $3,75 miliar. Ekspektasi untuk pengumuman treasury pada hari Senin diperkuat oleh pola sebelumnya, di mana sinyal serupa pada hari Minggu mendahului pengungkapan cadangan uang yang lebih besar pada 27 Juli. Pembaruan data hari Senin ini akan menunjukkan apakah MicroStrategy kembali ke akumulasi Bitcoin, karena perusahaan menyeimbangkan cadangan Bitcoinnya yang besar dengan kewajiban tunai yang meningkat dan manajemen modal yang aktif. Risiko keuangan tetap tinggi setelah MicroStrategy melaporkan kerugian operasional $8,33 miliar untuk kuartal II 2026, termasuk kerugian belum terealisasi $8,32 miliar pada aset digitalnya.

cryptonews.ru2j yang lalu

Boom Bitcoin Memanas: Pernyataan Baru Saylor Picu Spekulasi Pembelian

cryptonews.ru2j yang lalu

Saham Perusahaan yang Bergerak di Bidang Kecerdasan Buatan Diperdagangkan Seperti 'Meme Coin', Sementara Bitcoin Hampir Tak Berubah Harganya — Tinjauan Mingguan

Tinjauan minggu ini menyoroti dominasi berita pasar saham tradisional dan makroekonomi atas berita kripto. Peringatan keamanan mendesak dikeluarkan untuk pengguna Coldcard terkait potensi kompromi kunci pribadi. Sementara itu, Bitcoin relatif stabil di sekitar $64.000, perhatian pasar justru terfokus pada volatilitas ekstrem di saham AI dan pasar Asia, terutama Korea Selatan yang mengalami penurunan signifikan. Likuidasi besar oleh dana "Situational Awareness" diduga berkontribusi pada penurunan ini. Di sektor kripto, tren bearish berlanjut dengan beberapa perusahaan seperti BitMart dan Storj Labs mengumumkan penutupan atau kebangkrutan. Perusahaan yang masih beroperasi, seperti Coinbase, mengalami tekanan dengan penurunan harga saham dan gelombang PHK di industri. Di sisi lain, MicroStrategy terus menambah cadangan kasnya dan membeli kembali sahamnya. Ekosistem DeFi menghadapi tantangan potensial dari kesuksesan proyek seperti Trade.xyz dan Pump.fun, yang dapat memutuskan untuk beroperasi secara mandiri. Isu perdagangan orang dalam juga mencuat di platform Hyperliquid. Sementara itu, token AI seperti Bittensor (TAO) menarik perhatian investor venture capital, meski disertai peringatan agar investor retail berhati-hati. Artikel ditutup dengan penekanan kembali pada pentingnya kewaspadaan keamanan, khususnya dalam penyimpanan aset kripto secara mandiri, di tengah potensi meningkatnya kerentanan perangkat keras dompet digital.

cryptonews.ru2j yang lalu

Saham Perusahaan yang Bergerak di Bidang Kecerdasan Buatan Diperdagangkan Seperti 'Meme Coin', Sementara Bitcoin Hampir Tak Berubah Harganya — Tinjauan Mingguan

cryptonews.ru2j yang lalu

Trading

Spot
活动图片