2025-12-29 16:28:21

I tested an automated trading robot, which has been running continuously from last night to noon today, and its performance is quite good.

The record of these 14 trades looks solid: a total investment of 174u, recovered 189.8u, net profit of 15.83u, a profit rate of 9.09%, and a success rate of 100%. With this pace, if it can truly stabilize, this robot has the potential to become a money-printing machine.

However, the good times didn't last long. During testing, a more serious bug was discovered. This requires thorough debugging; otherwise, if something goes wrong with a tool that’s making money, it’s all for nothing. Technical issues are often the most hidden, and a small logical loophole can overturn all previous achievements. Ongoing troubleshooting.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

14 Likes

Reward
14
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GasWaster69

· 01-01 09:54

9% return rate, no hype or criticism, it's just this bug causing the chaos

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityNinja

· 01-01 08:40

A 9.09% return is pretty good, but a single bug can cause everything to collapse. That's the cruelty of quant trading. --- 100% success rate? I find it hard to believe, the sample size is too small. --- Printing money haha, let's wait until the bug is fixed. It's a bit early to say that now. --- 14 trades and you're so optimistic? I thought the same last time... and then I went bankrupt. --- The key is how serious that bug really is, can it be fixed? That's the main point. --- Stability is the key. Short-term data looks good, but it’s useless. Wait for a few complete cycles before bragging. --- Looking at the data alone, there is hope, but with so many pitfalls in on-chain transactions, there might be more than one bug. --- Technical debt. That's why most quant strategies eventually fail; one logical error and it's gg.

View OriginalReply0

YieldWhisperer

· 2025-12-29 16:58

9.09% looks great, but I'm just worried that the backtest data will look good only to be slapped in the face by reality.

View OriginalReply0

DataOnlooker

· 2025-12-29 16:37

9.09% looks appealing, but with only 14 transactions in the sample, it's too few. Wait until we run a thousand transactions before drawing conclusions, printing money. Once a bug appears, all data becomes nonsense. That's the nature of bots. Net profit of 15.83 USD still needs further validation. Don't celebrate too early. Logical loopholes are hard to prevent; keep investigating and good luck. 100% success rate? I don't believe you. The market is so gentle? The sample size is too small; there's no confidence. Let's see how it performs during a bear market.

View OriginalReply0

BackrowObserver

· 2025-12-29 16:29

9.09% just wants to be a printing machine, close enough, buddy --- Once a bug appears, the previous data becomes worthless paper. This is the fate of quantification --- 14 samples, what can I say? Run another hundred and see --- Wait until the bug is fixed before bragging, or you'll suffer heavy losses --- Logical loopholes are the most damn annoying, often in the places you can't see --- A 100% success rate makes me laugh; this data itself is problematic --- Robots are good stuff, just afraid they'll break down halfway

View OriginalReply0