Research · the evidence

The numbers, with their methodology attached.

Everything the product claims, in one place, with the window, the costs and the limits printed beside each figure. The live account is graded against these numbers one night at a time on the live page; what failed is in the graveyard.

Which blend is right for you?

What held up after every correction we could throw at it. Backtests from $10,000, not promises; each line names its window.

COMFORTABLE WITH CRYPTO
ULTRA 60 / bitcoin 20 / gold 20
27.7% a year, worst fall −21.7%, 2015 to 2026 (as far back as bitcoin goes, a stretch that includes bitcoin’s rise from about $300). The best blend we have measured: nothing we tested beat it at the same risk.
Available when the bitcoin & gold expansion goes on sale.
NO CRYPTO
ULTRA alone
15.6% a year, worst fall −27.6%, 2000 to 2026 (through two crashes). Every no-crypto blend that looked better on paper (Foundry, the cross-asset rotation) was replayed as it would actually trade and did not hold up: the engine alone ended with more money. Grave 180, grave 179.

The two windows are not comparable: 2015 to 2026 carries bitcoin’s boom; 2000 to 2026 carries the 2000 and 2008 crashes and no bitcoin. Pick one blend; they are not meant to be stacked. Registered tests R-118, R-121, R-125 to R-128 on the research page. Not investment advice.

The blend contest · R-128

Four challengers tried to beat our best blends. Two won the no-crypto track; nobody beat bitcoin & gold.

Four independent contestants (factors, trend & alternatives, global & sectors, and a wildcard) each submitted fully specified entries before any were scored. Real fund histories only, no rebuilt funds; an entry wins only by beating the target at the same worst fall in every period. $10,000, growth per year and worst fall:

No-crypto book2000 to 20262000 to 20122013 to 2026Result
ULTRA alone15.6%, −27.6%8.4%, −26.1%22.2%, −27.7%reference
ULTRA 80 / Foundry 20 (corrected)15.7%, −25.3%8.2%, −24.0%21.9%, −26.0%withdrawn: failed the full replay (grave 180)
ULTRA 70 / Foundry 15 / defensive 15 (corrected)14.5%, −22.7%8.2%, −20.9%19.8%, −22.9%withdrawn with Foundry (grave 180)
ULTRA 65 / cross-asset rotation 35 (wildcard)14.2%, −20.8%8.5%, −19.4%19.4%, −20.7%won this test; withdrawn after the full replay as it would actually trade (grave 179)
ULTRA 60 / cross-asset trend 40 (trend & alternatives)13.2%, −18.8%9.3%, −17.9%16.7%, −18.8%won, thinly
Five other entries12.2% to 13.3% a year, worst falls −19.3% to −25.2%did not win

Crypto track: the one challenger (engine 50 / bitcoin 25 / gold 25) ended with more money, 29.4% a year against 27.7%, but fell further (−24.4% against −21.7%) and lost at the same risk in every period. More bitcoin bought more money only by taking more risk. What to discount: the contestants are AI models whose knowledge runs past 2012, and a contest with eight entries produces some winners by chance; the rotation winner failed its full replay (grave 179); the trend winner is on a live watch and not in the product. Not investment advice.

Withdrawn · Foundry basket

Foundry beside the engine looked like it helped. The full replay said no.

On paper, the Foundry basket beside bitcoin and gold, and later beside the engine alone, looked like a small improvement. Each time we corrected the test (young funds rebuilt from today’s holdings, then a replay of every trade as it would really happen), the lead shrank. In the final replay (R-136, 27 September 2026) the engine alone ended with more money and the worst fall was no smaller. Foundry is not offered. Read grave 180 →

Income funds · tested against past market prices

Can income funds make the engine better?

We tested adding income-paying funds to the engine. None earned a place. The best combinations below looked promising for one year, but their plain versions failed on 2001–2024 history (grave 169), and 26 of 27 income funds made less than the fund they are built on (grave 146). Bigger payouts do not mean bigger profits.

Starting account

Test period: 5 Sep 2025–18 Sep 2026. No money withdrawn. Trading costs included. Both account sizes use the same IRA funding assumptions; see technical details.

1. The engine with CHPY + XLE

Closed—not a recommendation. CHPY + XLE earned the most in this one-year test, a year picked during a chip boom. Its plain version, SMH + XLE, failed on 2001–2024 history: a deeper worst fall and nothing extra to show for it (grave 169). It is still recorded forward, for the record, not as a candidate.

The test targets 5% of the account in CHPY and 5% in XLE, taking that money from the engine’s stock holdings. Growth and biggest drop describe the whole account. Cash paid comes from these two funds and is already included in growth—not extra profit.

ModeAccount growthBiggest dropCash paidChange vs engine alone
STEADY+25.9%−11.2%$647.68+4.1 points
SELECT+32.3%−12.0%$655.27+3.4 points
ULTRA+38.7%−16.0%$665.71+2.4 points

Growth covers the test period, not a typical year. Biggest drop is the largest fall from an account high. A change of +3.4 points means growth was 3.4 percentage points higher than the engine alone. At $5,000, STEADY grew less with these funds, although its biggest drop was smaller. Swipe to see all columns. Engine-only long-history results remain below.

2. What else we tested

Start with “Our take,” not the biggest return. “Not selected” means the combination did not meet the comparison we used. “Not enough evidence” means we cannot draw a dependable conclusion. “Closed · still observed” means it was picked for further testing, its plain version then failed on long history, and it is still recorded forward for the record—not a candidate.

Each example uses SELECT with a 10% target for the listed funds. Growth and biggest drop describe the whole account. Cash paid comes only from those funds and is included in growth. Some combinations include funds focused on growth rather than income.

336 combinations have results for $25,000. Showing the first 20. These are research results, not recommendations.

Our takeFundsAccount growthBiggest dropCash paid
Closed · still observed
Why?

Picked on this one year. Its plain version failed on 2001–2024 history (grave 169), so it is no longer a candidate. It is still recorded forward, for the record.

Technical details

Registered report-only forward comparison arm. Not a passed gate or trading approval; collection health is not asserted here. Plain twins (CHPY swapped for SMH) failed R-086 on 2001–2024 (grave 169); retired from the watchlist 2026-09-23. The registered forward comparison continues unchanged. Source: FORWARD-COMPARISON.md; registration dated 2026-09-22

CHPY/MLPA+29.9%−12.7%$712.92
Closed · still observed
Why?

Picked on this one year. Its plain version failed on 2001–2024 history (grave 169), so it is no longer a candidate. It is still recorded forward, for the record.

Technical details

Registered report-only forward comparison arm. Not a passed gate or trading approval; collection health is not asserted here. Plain twins (CHPY swapped for SMH) failed R-086 on 2001–2024 (grave 169); retired from the watchlist 2026-09-23. The registered forward comparison continues unchanged. Source: FORWARD-COMPARISON.md; registration dated 2026-09-22

CHPY/MLPX+30.9%−12.3%$670.31
Closed · still observed
Why?

Picked on this one year. Its plain version failed on 2001–2024 history (grave 169), so it is no longer a candidate. It is still recorded forward, for the record.

Technical details

Registered report-only forward comparison arm. Not a passed gate or trading approval; collection health is not asserted here. Plain twins (CHPY swapped for SMH) failed R-086 on 2001–2024 (grave 169); retired from the watchlist 2026-09-23. The registered forward comparison continues unchanged. Source: FORWARD-COMPARISON.md; registration dated 2026-09-22

CHPY/XLE+32.3%−12.0%$655.27
Not enough evidence
Why?

The results so far are not enough to show this is a dependable improvement. More testing is needed.

Technical details

Historical results do not establish a validated upgrade. No individual pass is documented here. Source: Archived discovery studies

CHPY/GIAX/TDAQ (equal weight)+28.8%−13.8%Not available
Not selected
Why?

This combination did not give us both more money and smaller or equal losses than the alternatives we compared it with.

Technical details

0/36 valid scenarios beat both comparison sleeves in wealth with no deeper drawdown. No independent holdout. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md

AIPI/AMLP+27.7%−12.9%$582.98
Not selected
Why?

This combination did not give us both more money and smaller or equal losses than the alternatives we compared it with.

Technical details

0/36 valid scenarios beat both comparison sleeves in wealth with no deeper drawdown. No independent holdout. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md

AIPI/MLPA+27.7%−12.9%$577.58
Not selected
Why?

This combination did not give us both more money and smaller or equal losses than the alternatives we compared it with. It also uses leverage, which can amplify gains and losses.

Technical details

0/36 valid scenarios beat both comparison sleeves in wealth with no deeper drawdown. No independent holdout. Exposure: Weekly 1.2x. Leverage diagnostic only; not cleared for promotion. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md

AMDW/AMLP+38.6%−13.5%$1160.75
Not selected
Why?

This combination did not give us both more money and smaller or equal losses than the alternatives we compared it with. It also uses leverage, which can amplify gains and losses.

Technical details

0/36 valid scenarios beat both comparison sleeves in wealth with no deeper drawdown. No independent holdout. Exposure: Weekly 1.2x. Leverage diagnostic only; not cleared for promotion. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md

AMDW/MLPA+38.6%−13.5%$1158.04
Not selected
Why?

This combination did not give us both more money and smaller or equal losses than the alternatives we compared it with. It also uses leverage, which can amplify gains and losses.

Technical details

0/36 valid scenarios beat both comparison sleeves in wealth with no deeper drawdown. No independent holdout. Exposure: Weekly 1.2x. Leverage diagnostic only; not cleared for promotion. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md

AMZW/AMLP+26.5%−13.0%$624.42
Not selected
Why?

This combination did not give us both more money and smaller or equal losses than the alternatives we compared it with. It also uses leverage, which can amplify gains and losses.

Technical details

0/36 valid scenarios beat both comparison sleeves in wealth with no deeper drawdown. No independent holdout. Exposure: Weekly 1.2x. Leverage diagnostic only; not cleared for promotion. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md

AMZW/MLPA+26.2%−13.1%$617.88
Not selected
Why?

This combination did not give us both more money and smaller or equal losses than the alternatives we compared it with. It also uses leverage, which can amplify gains and losses.

Technical details

0/36 valid scenarios beat both comparison sleeves in wealth with no deeper drawdown. No independent holdout. Exposure: Weekly 1.2x. Leverage diagnostic only; not cleared for promotion. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md

AVGW/AMLP+26.6%−12.9%$865.68
Not selected
Why?

This combination did not give us both more money and smaller or equal losses than the alternatives we compared it with. It also uses leverage, which can amplify gains and losses.

Technical details

0/36 valid scenarios beat both comparison sleeves in wealth with no deeper drawdown. No independent holdout. Exposure: Weekly 1.2x. Leverage diagnostic only; not cleared for promotion. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md

AVGW/MLPA+26.4%−12.9%$861.30
Not enough evidence
Why?

The results so far are not enough to show this is a dependable improvement. More testing is needed.

Technical details

Historical results do not establish a validated upgrade. No individual pass is documented here. Source: Archived discovery studies

BKLN/AMLP+27.3%−12.4%Not available
Not enough evidence
Why?

The results so far are not enough to show this is a dependable improvement. More testing is needed.

Technical details

Historical results do not establish a validated upgrade. No individual pass is documented here. Source: Archived discovery studies

BKLN/MLPA+26.1%−12.4%Not available
Not selected
Why?

This combination did not give us both more money and smaller or equal losses than the alternatives we compared it with.

Technical details

0/36 valid scenarios beat both comparison sleeves in wealth with no deeper drawdown. No independent holdout. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md

CEPI/AMLP+27.2%−13.0%$680.34
Not selected
Why?

This combination did not give us both more money and smaller or equal losses than the alternatives we compared it with.

Technical details

0/36 valid scenarios beat both comparison sleeves in wealth with no deeper drawdown. No independent holdout. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md

CEPI/MLPA+27.5%−13.3%$676.01
Not selected
Why?

This combination did not give us both more money and smaller or equal losses than the alternatives we compared it with.

Technical details

0/36 valid scenarios beat both comparison sleeves in wealth with no deeper drawdown. No independent holdout. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md

CHPY/AIPI+30.2%−13.6%$1084.84
Not enough evidence
Why?

The results so far are not enough to show this is a dependable improvement. More testing is needed.

Technical details

Historical results do not establish a validated upgrade. No individual pass is documented here. Source: Archived discovery studies

CHPY/AIPI/MLPA+29.0%−12.8%Not available
Not selected
Why?

Higher returns came with bigger drops. We have not seen enough evidence that the extra risk is worth it. AMDW also uses leverage, which can amplify gains and losses.

Technical details

Higher wealth, but 0/36 scenarios beat both comparison sleeves with no deeper drawdown. Weekly 1.2x exposure: diagnostic only, not cleared for promotion. No independent holdout. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md

CHPY/AMDW+41.2%−14.2%$1693.99
Closed · still observed
Why?

Picked on this one year. Its plain version failed on 2001–2024 history (grave 169), so it is no longer a candidate. It is still recorded forward, for the record.

Technical details

Registered report-only forward comparison arm. Not a passed gate or trading approval; collection health is not asserted here. Plain twins (CHPY swapped for SMH) failed R-086 on 2001–2024 (grave 169); retired from the watchlist 2026-09-23. The registered forward comparison continues unchanged. Source: FORWARD-COMPARISON.md; registration dated 2026-09-22

CHPY/AMLP+30.0%−12.7%$718.34

Swipe to see all columns. A missing result means we do not have a matching test for that account size—not that the funds cannot be bought. “Not available” means we did not separately record cash paid by those funds. Shorter tests are grouped separately because they are not a fair comparison with a longer test.

Technical details: how we tested

Costs are $1 per order plus 0.05% each way. The funds replace part of the engine’s equity allocation, subject to the existing pilot gate. The account-size switch holds funding constant. Whole shares, modeled next-close fills and settlement constraints are included. Conditional IRA assumes eligible unsettled proceeds may be reused; actual broker permissions remain unverified. No new broker orders, forward observations or trading authorization.

The $5,000 follow-up contains four basket results; unavailable baskets are not scaled from another account. The three engine modes at each size were computed directly. The catalog indexes eight archived basket studies. It does not invent combinations from individually tested funds. Legacy labels preserve explicit unequal weights. Later reconciled records take priority, using the earliest available full-window start within a source rather than selecting the best return.

The original sector study found XBI beat the bare engine jointly on wealth and drawdown in 35 of 36 configurations, but both existing sleeve candidates in only 1 of 36. Those counts are not from this account-size follow-up. Overlapping scenarios are not independent validation. No robust upgrade established.

Sources: combo, SOXX, expanded, TappAlpha, broad-income, scoreboard, sector and USOY follow-up result files. The public data download identifies the source and exact window for each displayed basket. This catalog is not a claim that every historical test used identical weights, fund mandates or data-vendor treatment.

Download the numbers and sources

Income sleeve sizing · $25,000 account only

More income. A bigger slice of the account.

What happens when the entire income sleeve grows from 10% to 30%? In this short test, larger sleeves generally paid more cash, but the account also suffered a bigger drop. None of these sizes is a recommended allocation.

A different, shorter test: 16 July–18 September 2026 · 46 trading sessions · SELECT · $25,000 starting account. These figures do not share the year-long window above. The $5,000/$25,000 selector above does not change this section.

Original mix: CHPY + XLE

Half the sleeve in each fund. A 20% sleeve means $5,000 total—$2,500 in CHPY and $2,500 in XLE—with the remaining target allocation in the engine.

Account in sleeveEnding accountCash receivedBiggest drop
Engine only$25,668—−4.88%
10% · $2,500$25,655$86−5.23%
20% · $5,000$25,811$175−5.39%
25% · $6,250$25,792$220−5.56%
30% · $7,500$25,897$266−5.54%

Alternative mix: add TMGN

Within the sleeve: 35% CHPY, 35% XLE and 30% TMGN. These percentages describe the mix inside the sleeve—not percentages of the whole account.

Account in sleeveEnding accountCash receivedBiggest drop
10% · $2,500$25,666$73−5.23%
20% · $5,000$25,851$146−5.39%
25% · $6,250$25,829$187−5.59%
30% · $7,500$25,945$223−5.60%

The trade-off: CHPY/XLE paid more cash at every size. Adding TMGN finished with slightly more money, but slightly deeper losses before rounding. This short window does not establish the best mix or size. The separate forward comparisons remain at 10%.

Cash received is for the entire test period—not per month. It comes only from the sleeve and is already included in ending account value, not extra profit. No withdrawals were taken. The engine-only dash means no income sleeve, not that the engine received no distributions.

How this comparison was tested

Whole shares; conditional-IRA settlement assumptions without borrowing; a 2% sizing reserve; prior-close sizing and modeled next-close execution; $1 per order plus 5 basis points each way. Sleeve allocations replace core equity rather than adding borrowed money. Actual holdings can differ from targets. Existing monthly sleeve and QQQ gate rules apply—not an immediate daily stop. Whole-share sizing and rebalancing make outcomes uneven across sizes. The full sensitivity run covered 54 configurations across STEADY, SELECT and ULTRA at 5 and 20 basis points; these tables show only SELECT at 5 basis points. Historical discovery, not independent forward evidence, a crash test, or a forecast. Source: allocation-sensitivity.csv, generated by allocation_sensitivity.py.

01 · How it works

The Distillate: four modules, one discipline.

No patterns, no predictions, no indicators. The engine acts only on the one thing our research showed to be forecastable — volatility — and everything else exists to keep it honest.

M1

Signal detection

A daily read of realized volatility against a fixed target. Calm markets earn more exposure; violent ones earn less. The exact calibration is the product.

M2

Market context

Three modes. STEADY spreads the engine across the S&P, the NASDAQ and gold and steps each fully aside in confirmed downtrends. SELECT runs the NASDAQ alone with the same exit — more than the no-exit rule earned, at well under half its worst drawdown. ULTRA is SELECT’s rule run hotter — more exposure, the same exit, a −27% worst case instead of the −58% the old no-exit version carried.

M3

Execution intelligence

De-risks the moment the target falls; re-levers only through a deliberate threshold — fast toward safety, patient toward risk, still a handful of trades a year. Whole shares, sells before buys, sized from your live account value, one action per day at most.

M4

Risk controls

Installs inert. Real orders require a file you create yourself; delete it and it's off. Never margin, never past available cash, everything logged to your own Discord.

Data → intelligence → decision.

Market data

Daily closes

Two index ETFs, once a day after the bell. No feeds, no subscriptions, no order flow.

→
Intelligence

Regime & exposure

Completed daily closes inform the next target exposure. The founder’s evening preview currently runs at 5:35 PM ET / 2:35 PM PT.

→
Decision support

You stay in control

Read the preview in Discord and act yourself, or arm the separate executor. The founder’s execution run is scheduled for 10:45 AM ET / 7:45 AM PT on trading days, using the previous session’s close for its signal.

02 · Evidence, not decoration

The numbers, with their methodology attached.

How these figures are computed. The historical engine figures come from a full-history test that decides from the previous close, derives its position from what the account holds each session, buys only with settled cash under the executor’s own budget, and keeps its 2% sizing reserve, the way the live executor does. Whole shares, $1 a leg, dividends included, modelled next-close fills rather than the 7:45 AM Pacific execution price. Idle and parked cash earn the historical three-month Treasury yield, credited on the previous close’s settled balance — a rate assumption, not a model of any cash fund’s shares, distributions or fees. A worst fall is what this test produced, not a limit on what an account could lose; it moves about two points on the cash assumption alone, because a different cash balance buys a different whole number of shares. The full-history test and its frozen inputs are in the repository; the ledger entry is a test whose rules were written down in advance. The same figures are drawn as engine cards.

The deep tables below measure every engine. Every claim we publish falls into one of four evidence grades, and every grave in the graveyard is stamped with the grade of its own autopsy. Most products only ever show you C and call it S.

swipe for all columns →

grademeaningwhere
Slive — real money, published nightly, deposits excludedtrack record
Avalidated — 15+ years, era splits, controls, episode ledgercore tables
Bmeasured — honest backtest, shorter window or proxy fundssleeves, cash comparison
Carithmetic — compounding math; projections, not evidenceprojection tables
mode2009–2026 CAGR’09–26worst DDfull 1999–2026’99–26worst ever
STEADY13.8%−18%11.7%−18%
SELECT18.5%−20%14.7%−21%
ULTRA22.2%−27%17.3%−27%
S&P 500 buy & holdS&P B&H~15%−34%~9%−55%
MethodologyWhole shares, real commissions, 1-day execution lag, era splits on every claim, and the full window includes the dot-com crash — the worst decade we could find.
Coverage & cadenceCurrent founder schedule (September 2026): evening preview 5:35 PM ET / 2:35 PM PT; separate execution run 10:45 AM ET / 7:45 AM PT on trading days; record publication 5:50 PM ET / 2:50 PM PT. These scheduled runs are distinct from the backtest’s modeled next-close fills.
Account sizesValidated from $3,000 up. Small accounts pay for whole shares and settled-cash funding: a $3,000 account earns about half a point a year less than a $25,000 one on STEADY and SELECT, and on ULTRA the two sizes come out within a rounding error of each other
What it does not do. It does not predict direction — nothing we tested could. It will not prevent losses: the worst historical drawdowns are STEADY −18%, SELECT −21%, ULTRA −27%, and included a losing decade. It will not make you rich quickly — none of the strategies we tested supported a dependable 5%-a-month target after realistic costs. It compounds, in public, and that's the whole promise. It cannot see a gap coming. The exit checks once a month and the sizing rule reacts over days, so a large move inside a single session lands at whatever exposure was held the night before. At the ULTRA dial that has meant a worst day of −8.2% and about one day a year worse than −5%; at SELECT, −5.9% and eight such days in twenty-seven years. Nothing we tested predicts those days — nine signals, including VIX, dealer gamma and option volume, all failed at a usable hit rate — and the only lever that has ever changed the damage is size. Read the engine table with that in mind.

What the safe option costs.

Buy & hold is the academic comparison. The one most people actually face is leaving the money in savings. Here it is — measured in what the money will buy, not what the statement says.

after inflation1999–2026 · worst’99–26 · worst$5,000 becomes$5k →since 2009 · worst’09– · worst$5,000 becomes$5k →
Savings (3-month T-bill)−0.6% · −24%$4,281−1.2% · −24%$4,271
STEADY8.9% · −19%$51,53211.0% · −19%$31,292
SELECT11.8% · −24%$106,83015.5% · −24%$63,548
ULTRA14.3% · −30%$195,25919.1% · −30%$108,313
QQQ buy & hold8.0% · −84%$40,89617.4% · −39%$84,578

Read the drawdowns before the returns. Since 2009 a NASDAQ rule with no exit and QQQ buy & hold finish almost together — in this sample, that rule offered little separation from the index on return. The exit engines separate from both — SELECT 18.5% and ULTRA 22.2% a year since 2009 — at a third to half the drawdown. The separation is in the other column. Over the full cycle, buy & hold’s worst real drawdown is −84% — $5,000 of purchasing power becoming about $800 before recovering — and the historical record is full of accounts that sold there. ULTRA’s worst was −30%, SELECT’s −24%, STEADY’s −19%. Buy-and-hold returns exist on paper; surviving the path is the product.

Inflation averaged 2.60% a year across both windows, so a savings account has a negative real return in both: $5,000 left in cash since 2009 buys about $4,271 of goods today. Measured in purchasing power rather than dollars, cash’s worst drawdown since 1999 is −23.9%, it spent 94% of all days below a previous high, and its longest stretch underwater was 17.6 years — longer than any equity drawdown in this sample. “Cash has no drawdown” is an artefact of measuring in the unit that is shrinking. We use the 3-month T-bill because it moves with rates the way savings rates do; note it understates a good savings account in 2009–2015, when top accounts paid near 1% and bills paid almost nothing.

And the number that cuts the other way. Cash still wins plenty of individual years. Over 1999–2026 a savings account beat a NASDAQ rule with no exit in 26% of rolling twelve-month windows — and when it won, it won by 13.7% on average, because cash only wins during crashes. Those years are real, and you would have spent them wishing you had done nothing. They are not spread evenly: they cluster into a handful of episodes — 2000–02, 2008, 2022 — which is the same reason the worst-drawdown numbers above deserve more weight than the averages.

What compounding looks like.

Illustrative compounding — not an account-size backtest. These tables apply the same historical rate at every starting balance. Actual results also depend on whole-share rounding, costs and cash settlement.

starting accountstartSTEADY · ~11.4%/yrSELECT · ~13.7%/yrULTRA · ~16.2%/yrBUY & HOLD · ~8.2%/yrSAVINGS · ~1.9%/yr
3y5y10y3y5y10y3y5y10y3y5y10y
$3,000$4,153$5,158$8,867$4,409$5,698$10,824$4,705$6,351$13,447$3,802$4,453$6,610$3,177$3,301$3,632
$5,000$6,921$8,596$14,778$7,348$9,497$18,039$7,842$10,586$22,411$6,337$7,422$11,017$5,295$5,501$6,053
$10,000$13,842$17,192$29,556$14,695$18,994$36,079$15,684$21,171$44,822$12,674$14,844$22,034$10,590$11,003$12,106
$25,000$34,605$42,980$73,891$36,738$47,486$90,197$39,209$52,928$112,056$31,686$37,109$55,084$26,475$27,507$30,264
$3,000starting account
3y5y10y
STEADY$4,153$5,158$8,867
SELECT$4,409$5,698$10,824
ULTRA$4,705$6,351$13,447
BUY & HOLD$3,802$4,453$6,610
SAVINGS$3,177$3,301$3,632
$5,000starting account
3y5y10y
STEADY$6,921$8,596$14,778
SELECT$7,348$9,497$18,039
ULTRA$7,842$10,586$22,411
BUY & HOLD$6,337$7,422$11,017
SAVINGS$5,295$5,501$6,053
$10,000starting account
3y5y10y
STEADY$13,842$17,192$29,556
SELECT$14,695$18,994$36,079
ULTRA$15,684$21,171$44,822
BUY & HOLD$12,674$14,844$22,034
SAVINGS$10,590$11,003$12,106
$25,000starting account
3y5y10y
STEADY$34,605$42,980$73,891
SELECT$36,738$47,486$90,197
ULTRA$39,209$52,928$112,056
BUY & HOLD$31,686$37,109$55,084
SAVINGS$26,475$27,507$30,264

Compounded at the full-cycle 2000–2026 rates — the same window as the chart below, dot-com crash included. The buy & hold column is the honest yardstick — the gap between it and the three engines is what the discipline is worth, and it is not a promise: history is one sample, and every mode spends years underwater along the way. Watch the live line rather than trusting a table.

$5,000 invested 2000 · real historical paths, log scale ULTRA $256,185 · worst -26%SELECT $146,020 · worst -21%STEADY $87,828 · worst -18%BUY & HOLD $41,214 · worst -54%SAVINGS $8,321 · before inflation
drawdown from peak — the part the returns cost you
-18% steady -54% buy & hold
2000dot-com2008 202020222026

The same $5,000, four disciplines, through the dot-com crash, 2008, COVID and 2022. The lower panel is the honest half: how far below its own high-water mark each one sat, every day. STEADY never went deeper than -18%; buy & hold spent years past -54%. ULTRA's -26% is the price of its extra compounding — it earns the most of the three and it hurts the most. Log scale — equal vertical distance is equal percentage move, which is the only honest way to draw 26 years. Notice where the lines separate: not in the bull runs, but in the craters.

The dashed line is the one to respect. Buying and holding the S&P 500 is the gold standard of investing — roughly 9–15% a year depending on the era, for zero effort, and most professionals never beat it. It is the default your money already deserves, and the only honest reason to run anything more complicated is what this chart shows: beat it, or take meaningfully less pain earning it. That dashed line is the bar we measure ourselves against — never the zero line.

What a monthly habit builds.

Same $3,000 start, same full-cycle rates as the projection table above. “You put in” counts the start plus every deposit — $50 a month for ten years is $3,000 + $50×120 = $9,000 of your own money; the strategy’s work is the distance between that column and its own. Deposits buy toward target on the next run, so every contribution is also a free rebalance.

After five years · starting from $3,000

swipe for all columns →

addingyou put input insavingsSTEADYSELECTULTRAULTRA
none$3,000$3,296$5,158$5,698$6,351
$50/mo$6,000$6,439$9,121$9,882$10,792
$100/mo$9,000$9,583$13,085$14,065$15,232
$200/mo$15,000$15,869$21,013$22,432$24,113
$500/mo$33,000$34,728$44,796$47,533$50,754

After ten years · starting from $3,000

swipe for all columns →

addingyou put input insavingsSTEADYSELECTULTRAULTRA
none$3,000$3,621$8,867$10,824$13,447
$50/mo$9,000$10,218$19,645$22,953$27,288
$100/mo$15,000$16,815$30,424$35,083$41,129
$200/mo$27,000$30,008$51,981$59,342$68,810
$500/mo$63,000$69,588$116,653$132,120$151,856

The “none” rows are the strategy alone — identical to the projection table above, same math. At this account size the habit is worth more than the strategy: going from nothing to $50 a month roughly doubles the ten-year outcome. Held for twenty years, $200 a month at the same rates builds roughly $197,000 on STEADY, $263,000 on SELECT and $364,000 on ULTRA from $51,000 contributed. Same caveat as everything on this page: compounded history, not a promise.

03 · The words

The jargon, translated

Every term this page leans on, in plain words. None of them require a finance background — if a sentence here still reads like homework, that is our failure, not yours.

%/yr — CAGR
The steady yearly growth rate that would produce the same ending value. 20%/yr doubles money roughly every 3.5 years — if the path repeats, which is never promised.
volatility
How violently a price has been swinging — the size of the daily moves, not their direction. A calm market and a crashing one can sit at the same price; they never have the same volatility.
drawdown
The fall from a peak to the low that followed. −52% means $10,000 became $4,800 before recovering. It is the number that decides whether you quit — we print it before the returns on purpose.
exposure
How much of your money is riding the market. 0.5× means half is invested; 1.2× means more than all of it, built with a 2× fund — never with borrowed money.
2× fund
An ETF engineered to move twice as much as its index each day. Holding some next to the plain index is how exposure above 1× is expressed without a margin loan.
the sleeve
Where the money the engine is not using waits. Cash tier: Treasury bills. Trend tier: a managed-futures fund.
T-bills
Short-term loans to the US government — the closest thing to cash that still pays interest.
managed futures
Funds that follow persistent moves in many markets, up or down. Historically they earned most during long stock declines — exactly when this strategy holds the most idle cash.
rebalance
A trade that moves the account back toward its target — trimming after risk rose, adding after it fell. A couple of dozen times a year here, not daily.
risk-adjusted return
Return per unit of rockiness endured (the Sharpe ratio). All three engines score almost identically on it — the hotter modes buy more return with more risk, not more skill.
time-weighted return
Performance with your deposits and withdrawals stripped out, so adding money can never masquerade as the strategy performing. The live page uses it everywhere.
backtest
Replaying the rules against history. Evidence, not proof — history happened once. The live account exists because backtests are not enough.
log scale
A chart where each step up is the same percentage, not the same dollars — the honest way to draw decades of compounding.

Ready to decide? The engines and the price are on the front page. Not convinced? Read what died first.

04 · Research in progress

Algomist Labs

An idea earns its place through testing.

Our research layer checks proposals against the Graveyard, records the rules and rejection criteria, then tries to disprove the case. It cannot change a frozen rule, approve an expansion or place a trade.

Pre-release refinement. Advisory recommendations. Release gates remain final.

The research benchA notebook, a testing flask and a review sheet illustrate the path from a recorded hypothesis through adversarial testing to evidence review. HYPOTHESISTESTREVIEW
A research workflow, not an automated trading signal.
Read the evidence in context. The six recent proposal screens used researcher-selected historical windows and training-volatility matching, not the equal-drawdown control used for BTC + Gold. Their fractional return-stream tests exclude overlay trading costs and settlement. A failed screen is not a numbered grave.

“Under observation” does not mean trading. “Applied improvement” describes completed research or implementation work, not approval to sell an expansion. R-numbers are reference IDs.

Loading the research ledger…