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

marsbitPubblicato 2026-02-27Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-02-27

Introduzione

"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% <极速赛车开奖网em data-index-in-node="0" data-path-to-node="11,9,3,0">-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.

Domande pertinenti

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.

Letture associate

What's the Connection Between Pinduoduo's Huang Zheng and Blockchain?

This text explores the unexpected connection between Pinduoduo founder Colin Huang and blockchain, as suggested in his article *Turning Capitalism Upside Down*. Huang argues Pinduoduo's core business is about managing "uncertainty." He posits that wealth flows to the rich because they absorb life's uncertainties (e.g., illness, job loss) that devastate the poor, who pay a premium for certainty through insurance or stable prices. Pinduoduo's model attempts a "reverse insurance": by aggregating consumer demand via group-buying and flash sales, it creates a large, predictable order for manufacturers. This certainty allows factories to remove risk premiums, passing savings back as lower prices, thus partially reversing the wealth flow. The key obstacle, Huang notes, is that an individual's buying intent is an unreliable promise. He then asks if blockchain is the natural solution for this "reverse insurance." The text elaborates that blockchain, through smart contracts with binding deposits, could transform casual intent into a costly-to-break, enforceable commitment. This replaces interpersonal trust with coded rules, making promises credible, pricable, and resistant to fraud. Finally, the author draws a parallel to Bitcoin, framing two paths to creating certainty: the "Pinduoduo path" of aggregating decentralized will into scale, and the "Bitcoin path" of locking rules into immutable code. Both sacrifice something—personal freedom or system flexibility—to manufacture trust and predictability.

链捕手14 min fa

What's the Connection Between Pinduoduo's Huang Zheng and Blockchain?

链捕手14 min fa

The Storage Magnate Who Conquered a Trillion-Dollar Kingdom, Yet Ultimately Could Not Become the Richest

**Summary:** "The Memory Magnate Who Built a Trillion-Dollar Empire, Yet Never Became the Richest" explores the journey of Zhu Yiming, founder of GigaDevice (603986) and co-founder of the soon-to-IPO ChangXin Memory Technologies (CXMT). The article positions GigaDevice, a fabless chip designer now valued at ~¥340 billion, as a prequel to the massive IDM (Integrated Device Manufacturer) venture, CXMT. Starting in 2005 with minimal capital, Zhu strategically "picked up the pieces" by focusing on niche markets like NOR Flash and microcontrollers (MCUs), areas major players were exiting. This allowed GigaDevice to grow into a diversified semiconductor company, maintaining robust profitability even during industry downturns by controlling costs. However, the piece argues that in the highly cyclical and capital-intensive memory chip industry, the fabless model has limits. True resilience and scale require the ability for "counter-cyclical expansion" – investing heavily during downturns – a tactic only possible for IDMs like Samsung or SK Hynix. This insight led Zhu to partner with the Hefei city government in 2016 to establish CXMT, an IDM focused on DRAM. Zhu's symbolic moves, like forfeiting salary and diluting his equity, were crucial in securing the massive state and bank funding needed. CXMT's equipment base is now valued even higher than that of BYD's vast auto manufacturing empire. Despite the potential for CXMT to reach a market cap of ¥1-2 trillion upon its IPO, Zhu's indirect stake in both companies is estimated below 3%, placing his personal wealth far below that of China's top billionaires. The article concludes that his strategic vision built a trillion-yuan memory landscape, but the capital structure necessary to achieve it precluded a personal fortune of similar scale.

marsbit21 min fa

The Storage Magnate Who Conquered a Trillion-Dollar Kingdom, Yet Ultimately Could Not Become the Richest

marsbit21 min fa

XRP Ledger Daily Fees Drop Below $400 As Network Activity Question Returns

The XRP Ledger is drawing attention as daily network fees have fallen below $400. While low fees align with XRPL's design for affordable transactions and are often seen as a strength, the metric can also serve as an indicator of network demand and paid transaction volume. This data point of around $3,100 in weekly fee burn highlights the stark contrast with higher-fee chains like Ethereum and Bitcoin. The development fuels an ongoing debate. Proponents view low fees as a sign of efficiency and accessibility, while critics may question if the network is generating sufficient high-value activity relative to its market cap and payments-focused narrative. The article cautions against overstating the finding, noting a single low-fee day does not signify network failure. It instead adds context to discussions about XRPL's usage, especially alongside Ripple's broader initiatives in stablecoins (RLUSD), AI payments, and enterprise infrastructure. The report recommends monitoring for a fee rebound, checking transaction counts for a fuller picture, and confirming the trend via native explorers like Bithomp. It frames the story within a larger market shift where on-chain data, protocol updates, and infrastructure developments are becoming crucial alongside price action. The editorial stance is to present the verified data, explain its significance for assessing network activity, and avoid hype, positioning it as part of the daily crypto conversation.

bitcoinist4 h fa

XRP Ledger Daily Fees Drop Below $400 As Network Activity Question Returns

bitcoinist4 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片