2026-01-02 08:23:06

Recently, I was chatting with several quantitative traders managing over a billion dollars in funds. Their core logic left a deep impression—"A stable monthly return of 5-8%, doubling the capital in a year is enough." This approach makes sense, but after hearing it, I became even more convinced of another idea: small funds and large funds fundamentally shouldn't follow the same path.

Why is that? Large funds are playing a scale game. Investing several hundred million into the market, a 5% monthly return is considered top-tier in the industry because they naturally fear volatility and drawdowns, so their strategies are tuned to "not dying." Essentially, they earn money through time and volume. But small funds are left behind—they don't get a share of the feast. With a capital of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, by the time their capital slowly doubles, inflation has already eroded their gains.

Therefore, I chose a different path: a mix of aggressive and conservative strategies. The core logic is simple—use small positions to pursue high returns, while large positions maintain the basic stability.

How exactly do I operate? My aggressive strategy isn't reckless gambling. Based on a classic trend-following framework, I add signal enhancement and optimization. Normally, I only enter when the moving average golden cross occurs, but I also incorporate two additional conditions: volume breakout and volatility threshold. This allows me to enter 3-5 K-lines earlier. The key is in stop-loss settings—controlling the maximum loss per trade within 1.5% of the principal.

Many people's aggressive quantitative strategies fail quickly because they confuse aggressive trading with full-position all-in. Poor risk management means even the best strategy is just paper tiger.

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
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

TideReceder

· 14h ago

Haha, you're right. Small investors really need to find a different approach. Monthly interest of 5%? That's the pace for big players to secure their retirement. We can't afford to play that game. The key is still discipline in stop-loss; that's the easiest to break.

View OriginalReply0

MEVHunterBearish

· 15h ago

A 5% monthly yield is really stable enough, but small investors do indeed suffer with this pace. Being aggressive and going all-in are not the same thing; risk control is what keeps you alive. This mixed strategy is reliable; the key is still disciplined execution. With small funds, you should gamble; anyway, the drawdown won't lose much money.

View OriginalReply0

SnapshotStriker

· 01-03 04:36

That's right, small investors need a different approach; copying the big funds' slow and meticulous methods is truly a dead end. Aggressive strategies require disciplined stop-loss measures, otherwise it's just gambling. Controlling a single trade drawdown at 1.5% sounds disciplined, but can such stacking really generate returns? That said, the idea of confirming entry with both volume and volatility is good, but I'm worried that backtest data and live trading are two different things. Small funds are most afraid of inflation eating into returns; a 5% monthly return is indeed a pipe dream for retail investors. However, you're right about risk management—being aggressive without stop-losses is suicide. I've seen too many people like that.

View OriginalReply0

BridgeTrustFund

· 01-02 08:53

Large capital is just like this—boasting about a 5% monthly return. Small investors like us still have to find our own way. --- I agree with the 1.5% stop-loss; the worst thing is those reckless and mindless shuttling strategies. --- Honestly, we still need to explore our own path. Copying big capital strategies is really courting death. --- A hybrid strategy sounds good, but I worry about mental breakdowns during execution. --- Inflation eating into returns hits home. No wonder so many people want to take a shot. --- The key is risk management. No matter how aggressive the strategy, without it, it's useless. --- Doubling small funds takes time; a 5% monthly return for big funds means doubling annually. That’s a huge gap. --- The signal enhancement and optimization system sounds complicated. Can it be reliably operated in practice? --- The invincible strategy works for large funds. We definitely need to find another way. --- A 1.5% stop-loss seems strict, but living longer is the real key to victory.

View OriginalReply0

DiamondHands

· 01-02 08:47

That's right, the key is still discipline in cutting losses. --- Small funds mean you have to gamble; otherwise, inflation will really eat you alive. --- A 1.5% stop loss is something I need to remember; it's much more reliable than my previous reckless approach. --- So the core is that the amount of capital determines the strategy? Then I need to reevaluate my own operations. --- A hybrid strategy sounds good, but I'm worried that greed might kick in again during execution. --- This logic has some substance; finally hearing a different perspective. --- The difference between aggressive and full-position all-in trading—many people haven't figured it out even after dying. --- I'm curious, how exactly do you parameterize this signal optimization? --- A 1.5% stop loss sounds safe, but can you really stick to it in real trading? --- I feel the same; large capital is really about playing the time compound, we truly can't compare.

View OriginalReply0

WhaleWatcher

· 01-02 08:40

Monthly 5-8% sounds great, but if you really want small amounts to double this speed, it's indeed exaggerated; inflation can eat away at profits in minutes. You need to distinguish between aggressive and all-in strategies, or else your account will be gone in no time. A 1.5% stop-loss is ruthless; most people die right here. Small funds must gamble, or there's really no hope. I respect this logic; the core is still to do risk control to the death.

View OriginalReply0

JustAnotherWallet

· 01-02 08:36

Large capital monthly return of 5% is indeed stable, but I just want to ask—what about us small investors? Follow the trend and eat dust? --- That's a valid point. The key is to have reliable stop-loss strategies; otherwise, being aggressive is just giving away money. --- I agree with this logic. Taking high risks with small positions to chase high returns means you have to be aggressive, or else inflation will eat away half of your gains. --- A 1.5% stop-loss is okay, but I'm worried about losing nerve when executing. --- A hybrid strategy sounds great, but can you really stay calm during actual operation? --- Anyway, I think copying big funds is pointless; we're not on the same track to begin with. --- Entering 3-5 K-lines early—how is this data calculated? Backtesting or live trading? --- Risk management is essential for meaningful aggression; those who go the other way probably went bankrupt. --- Small funds have to endure higher volatility—that's just fate. --- Breaking through volume thresholds and volatility levels sounds good, but choosing the right parameters is really tough.

View OriginalReply0

BlockchainRetirementHome

· 01-02 08:29

Reliable, small investors really can't copy the big players' moves; the rhythm is completely different. --- That's right, but how many can truly execute a 1.5% stop-loss? The psychological barrier is the hardest. --- I'm also trying the small position high-yield strategy. The problem is that high-yield opportunities are so scarce, can't afford to wait. --- A 5% monthly yield is top-tier for large funds, but for retail investors, it really can't compare to the joy of a market rally, haha. --- The key is risk control. Looking at your logic, it's just two words—reliable. --- Being aggressive is fine, but aggressive trading without a stop-loss is just asking for trouble. That hits home. --- It feels like saying, don't blindly follow the trend; finding your own rhythm is what's important. --- A 1.5% stop-loss sounds simple, but executing it requires a tough mindset. Most people probably can't do it. --- Inflation hits the mark well; waiting for it to double slowly is really not an option. --- Entering 3-5 K-lines early is a good optimization, but how to set the volatility threshold? There's a threshold involved.

View OriginalReply0