# Сопутствующие статьи по теме Loss

Новостной центр HTX предлагает последние статьи и углубленный анализ по "Loss", охватывающие рыночные тренды, новости проектов, развитие технологий и политику регулирования в криптоиндустрии.

MACD Real Backtest: Can Technical Indicators Lead You to Profit?

Based on a comprehensive 5-year backtest of the MACD trading strategy on BTC and ETH, this analysis delivers a sobering reality check for traders. The key finding is that 90% of short-term trading activity, particularly lower timeframes (15m, 30m, 1h), underperforms a simple "buy and hold" strategy due to transaction costs, noise, and psychological strain. The "benchmark" returns for simply holding the assets were +48.86% for BTC and +53.00% for ETH. The data reveals that MACD strategy performance is highly dependent on timeframe and leverage: * **Short Timeframes (15m, 30m, 1h):** Nearly all configurations resulted in significant losses or complete liquidation (-100%), severely underperforming the buy-and-hold benchmark. * **4-Hour Timeframe:** This was the only timeframe where the MACD strategy consistently generated alpha. * **BTC 4h (1x leverage):** ~+96% return, successfully outperforming buy-and-hold by avoiding major bear markets. * **ETH 4h (1x leverage):** ~+205% return, dramatically outperforming its buy-and-hold benchmark due to ETH's strong trend-following characteristics. * **Leverage Impact:** Leverage (2x, 3x) on the 4h timeframe amplified these gains effectively (e.g., ETH 4h 3x leverage yielded +552%). However, higher leverage (5x) often led to diminished returns due to funding fees and volatility decay, despite increased risk. The "Death Matrix" of results shows that short-term, high-leverage trading is akin to gambling" with a near-certain outcome of failure. The final recommendation is clear: for most investors, a buy-and-hold strategy is superior to active trading on low timeframes. For those seeking to outperform, the only viable approach is applying moderate leverage (2x-3x) exclusively on the 4-hour timeframe, with ETH presenting the best opportunity for significant excess returns.

marsbit01/17 08:45

MACD Real Backtest: Can Technical Indicators Lead You to Profit?

marsbit01/17 08:45

Fact Check: How Much Money Did the University of Chicago Really Lose in Cryptocurrency Trading?

Fact Check: Did the University of Chicago Lose Billions in Cryptocurrency Investments? A claim by Professor Zhao Dingxin suggested the University of Chicago lost over $6 billion in cryptocurrency investments, leading to budget cuts. However, the university’s official statement denies significant crypto losses, describing its crypto investments as "relatively small" and having doubled over five years. Financial reports show the university’s endowment ranged between $10.9–11.6 billion in recent years. A loss of $6 billion would require an implausibly large and risky allocation. More reliable sources, including the Stanford Daily, report actual crypto losses in the tens of millions—not billions. The university’s 2022 financial report indicated a drop in crypto holdings from $64 million to $45 million within a year, suggesting a loss of around $19 million. The university did experience a $1.5 billion total investment loss in FY2022, though it is unclear how much was related to crypto. Critics point to other major financial pressures, including $9.2 billion in debt from aggressive expansion and infrastructure projects. Administrative salaries also rose significantly during this period. In response to financial strain, the university is implementing budget cuts and plans to enroll more undergraduate students to increase revenue. The claim of a $6 billion crypto loss appears exaggerated and unsupported by official data.

marsbit01/15 04:52

Fact Check: How Much Money Did the University of Chicago Really Lose in Cryptocurrency Trading?

marsbit01/15 04:52

活动图片