What chasing 15% actually costs — vs the desk's steady ~3.3%
A full year, dated. Every 10-15% strategy the desk gets asked about, shown with the dated −X% it carries. The desk's steady book over the same year: max-drawdown ~0%. That gap is the whole product.
Method (so you can check us)
Same start date, same notional, same window for both sides. The aggressive curves are the lab's real 2024–2026 backtest. The stable curve compounds the desk's REAL conservative-book rate — an honest baseline, not a lowballed strawman. Drawdowns are shown two ways, always labelled: realized and modeled — never blended, never invented.
What it is, plainly
These are the strategies the desk refuses,
shown with their real risk so the choice is informed. Paper / advisory / outside RiskPolicy —
never live-allocated, never on the go-live track. Every figure traces to
data/aggressive_lab/annual_contrast.json —
deterministic, LLM-forbidden.
A year, dated · advisory · paper-only
What chasing 15% actually costs — vs the desk’s steady ~4.5%
static snapshot — connecting to live…
The honest bottom line
Across every aggressive book, the year ends higher — that is what the headline buys. But the path is paid for in dated drawdowns: the 2025-10 USDe unwind and the 2026-04 rsETH depeg show up on the 15% side with real dates and real depths. The desk's steady book walks the same year with max-drawdown ~0% — no dated cliff, nothing to explain to a client mid-quarter. That is the trade: you can chase 15% and own its tail, or take the deliberate ~3.3% realized (track-to-date, near the ~3.4% RWA floor) and own your sleep. We will run either with eyes open — this page is so the choice is informed.
Personal research project in paper validation — not investment advice, not a regulated service, not raising capital; results are simulated. Full disclaimer & risk disclosure →