A four-year study of three crypto assets, two strategies, and the one thing they don't share: how capital behaves between the peaks.
This is not a pitch. It is a backtest.
Between January 2022 and March 2026, we ran the Perpeto system on historical data for BTC/USDT, ETH/USDT and SOL/USDT, and compared it to a simple buy-and-hold investor. Same start date, same exchange data. One assumption: the investor had $1,000 to deploy on BTC and ETH, $1,500 on SOL on January 1, 2022. Everything else is what the market and the rules produced.
What follows is the full record — including where Hold wins.
Before the numbers, the rules that produced them.
The backtest runs on 1-second tick data from the Binance spot market for BTC/USDT, ETH/USDT and SOL/USDT — approximately 130+ million rows per asset, per year. We do not aggregate to daily candles for the simulation itself; the system sees price exactly as it would in production. Daily numbers in the charts below are roll-ups of that second-by-second engine, not its input.
The strategy ran with the identical rules that operate in production — no leverage, no margin, spot only, long only, progressive entries on drops, positions closed only in profit after a price reversal (callback). BTC and ETH used the Dynamic profile; SOL used the Standard profile — a less aggressive variant chosen for SOL's higher volatility, to avoid over-deployment of capital during deep crashes.
Every position is the same size within each asset. This is not a martingale. There is no doubling, no revenge sizing, no discretionary override.
The benchmark is a passive buy-and-hold investor who deployed the same starting capital on day one and did nothing else for 4.19 years. Starting capital was sized to each asset's expected volatility: $1,000 for BTC and ETH, $1,500 for SOL — Solana's wider volatility range needs a larger capital footprint to fund positions through deep drawdowns. Returns and risk metrics below are expressed as percentages and remain directly comparable across the three assets.
The same rules were applied to both. The market decided the rest.
Between Jan 2022 and Mar 2026, Bitcoin moved from $47,723 to $69,949 — uptrend with a 66% interim drawdown. This is the environment where Hold plays its home game.
In a market that trended up, Hold delivered the higher total return — $77 more on $1,000 over 4.19 years. Perpeto captured roughly 83% of that upside with about 40% of the drawdown. Risk-adjusted return (Sharpe) is similar. If your goal is to own the trend, hold the trend.
Between Jan 2022 and Mar 2026, Ethereum fell from $3,766 to $2,037 — losing 46% of its price over four years. This is the environment where Hold has nothing to capture.
ETH was the stress test. A Hold investor ended the period with 54% of their capital. Perpeto ended with 151%. The difference is not timing luck — it is what the system did between the peaks: 3,909 closed positions, each in profit, funded by the same volatility that punished Hold.
Solana lost 95% of its value at the deepest point of the 2022 crash — falling from $179 to $8 before recovering. By March 2026 it closed at $86, still 52% below its starting price. The deepest stress test of the three assets.
SOL was the deepest test. Hold lost 95% of its capital at the worst point and recovered to just 48% by the end. Perpeto's worst drawdown was −41%; the account finished at 156%. The 6,730 closed positions during the crash and the subsequent volatility did what Hold could not — turn a falling chart into accumulated cash.
Each strategy's worst fall from its own historical peak — measured independently on the same data, the same exchange, over the same four years.
Volatility was the same for both strategies. How deep capital fell beneath its own ceiling was not.
The outputs above are consequences. These are the mechanics that produced them.
Both strategies start at the same base capital on Jan 1, 2022 ($1,000 for BTC and ETH, $1,500 for SOL). Price (right axis) is shown for reference. Note how Perpeto continues to climb through price drawdowns — the gap between the lines is what the system does between the peaks.
The system expands into drawdowns (more positions, more capital deployed) and contracts on recoveries (positions close, capital returns to reserve). Position size was $12 on BTC, $10 on ETH and SOL. Average active capital over 4.19 years: $328 on BTC, $402 on ETH, $530 on SOL — the rest stayed as exchange cash, available at any time. By contrast, Hold kept the full starting capital deployed for every single day of the period.
Every dollar of the user's account, visualised as two layers — both held on the user's own exchange. The upper area is total account equity, which moves with the price of the underlying asset. The lower area is realised profit accumulated, which only grows. Notice how realised profit climbs day after day regardless of whether the price is rising or falling — that floor cannot be undone by the next drawdown.
Closed, realised USD profit per month. Regularity, not magnitude, is the point here. Profit stays on the user's own exchange account — they can withdraw it at any time or leave it to compound through redeployment.
of days closed at least one position in profit. No urgency, no forcing.
maximum open positions during the deepest drawdown. System sized itself to the market.
total closed positions on BTC. Each one closed in profit. No stops, no overrides.
average active capital on BTC over 4.19 years; peak $960. The rest sat as available exchange cash.
A backtest is worth the caveats it publishes alongside it.
A four-year Bitcoin uptrend rewarded patience more than it rewarded system. Perpeto delivered ~83% of Hold's return with about 40% of its drawdown. That is a risk-adjusted trade-off, not a win. If your thesis is "BTC goes up over years and I can sit through any drawdown," Hold is the rational choice on a trending asset — and we will say so.
Every open position waits for price to recover above entry. In a sustained, multi-year decline without interim bounces, capital stays allocated. The system does not time bottoms — it waits for them. This works because crypto markets oscillate; it does not work if an asset only goes down.
Perpeto assumes the user keeps enough reserve on the exchange to fund positions during drawdowns. The backtest ran with disciplined capital management; a real user who under-funds the strategy will see different results. This is not a "set and forget" product for undersized accounts.
Binance trading fees (~0.1% per trade) and the Perpeto 5–25% performance fee are not included. The Perpeto fee depends on your lifetime cumulative realised profit — it degresses from 25% at the start down to 5% above €20,001. We prefer to quote gross numbers and let you do the multiplication yourself based on the exchange and Perpeto fees that apply to your tier.
If after reading this section the system still makes sense to you, it probably does.
Hold
A position on time. It assumes the asset will be worth more in the future than it is today, and it trades patience for return. It is a good tool when trends are real and long.
Perpeto
A position on volatility. It assumes the asset will move up and down between now and the future — and it converts each oscillation into a closed, realised trade. It is a good tool when markets chop, drift, or decline without direction.
Most crypto portfolios already have the first tool. This study shows what the second one adds — and where it underperforms the first. Over the same four years, on the same exchange, with the same rules: BTC told the Hold story (+46.6% vs +38.9%), ETH told the Perpeto story (−45.9% vs +51.0%), and SOL was the deepest test of the same mechanism (−52.0% vs +56.3%, despite a 95% interim collapse).
In a falling market, having less of your money exposed usually means a smaller hit than going all-in — but it's a trade-off: you also capture less of any recovery, and open positions can sit underwater for a long time.
Your funds stay on your exchange. Read + Trade API only. No withdrawal access.