Thank you @Brandon and the community for this bot! Amazing work! I’m currently testing the bot on paper trading because the backtests seem a bit off.
I frequently encounter buggy backtests, and I’m not sure what to make of it, as I’ve seen similar anomalies with my TradingView backtests. For instance, using a similar strategy with the same backtest parameters, I don’t get consistent results between Gainium, TradingView + TTP extensions, and Python… Which one should I trust? @aressanch
@Rossano I don’t fully agree with your previous statement. While backtesting with BTC can be a step in the process, I don’t think it’s mandatory for several reasons.
- Yes, altcoins are correlated with BTC, but instead of validating the strategy solely based on its performance on BTC, why not use indicators tied to BTC’s price movements for opening, closing, or adjusting our positions? (A simple example: closing a SOL/USDT trade when BTC/USDT drops 10%, or using volume, BTC dominance, etc.)
- Many entities engage in algorithmic trading—not just retail traders like us but also big firms and even the exchanges themselves. Personally, I’ve noticed that some trading pairs respond much better to technical indicators than others. (For example: RNDR/USDT has been responding very well to RSI on Bybit for the past two years, while on Binance, not at all. In this example, a BTC-based RSI strategy doesn’t trigger any response.)
It’s precisely our job to find these small adjustment variables. Maybe @aressanch super backtest automator could be a huge help in this. Vote here for its implementation.