Curiosity
compounds
Follow the journey

Research · Open results

What the data
actually says.

A record of tested strategies, uncertain findings and ideas that did not survive trading costs. No cherry-picked winning screenshots.

Not a single
proven winner.

These numbers come from historical simulations, not real-money trading.

–Simulated trades
–Versions explored
–Stocks and funds
–Beat costs convincingly
–Years of daily prices
–Final exams on hidden data
–Adopted after the exam
–Live forward test
Average result per trade after modeled costs, validation period Sep 2025 – Apr 2026 (risk units, R). 90% range in brackets.
StudyMean net R90% rangeTradesVerdict
Awaiting verified data

A range that crosses zero is not evidence of a dependable edge. Many variants were explored, so an apparent winner needs more validation.

What costs do
to a strategy.

Change the modeled cost per buy or sell. This replays the historical study, not a brokerage account.

Historical study · Jan 2024 – Apr 2026 · 28 months · 22,106 simulated trades

Cumulative result, before and after modeled costs

Before costsAfter costs
0%0.05% (study)0.10%

At 0.05% per buy or sell, the study ends near −2,648 R.

Each line adds up every simulated trade’s result in risk units (1 R = the amount risked on a trade). The study modeled 0.05% slippage per buy or sell plus regulatory fees on sells; the slider scales that whole cost proportionally. It replays history. It does not predict future returns and is not a brokerage account.

Even a failed test
teaches something.

Each idea’s pass mark was written down before it ran.

In forward testing

Wider trade stops

Near breakeven historically. The range still crosses zero, so it is not a proven edge.

Failed

Scout’s odds score

Higher scores did not pick better trades than lower ones.

Failed

Stocks in play

Only trading unusually active stocks did not survive costs.

Failed

Late-day pattern

Small losses on most trades once costs were counted.

Failed

Overnight drops

Buying stocks that opened lower showed no reliable edge.

Failed

The big screen

More than ten thousand pre-registered ideas across stocks, news, filings and crypto. None held up on years they had never seen.

Failed

Popular public bots

Dozens of free community bots, run in their own software. None made money on the newer data.

Failed

Chasing big moves

Buying right after a big jump did worse than random picks, in stocks and in crypto.

Lead

A few survivors

A handful of ideas beat random picks in both periods. Not proven yet; each gets one final clean test.

Data gap

Earnings timing

Free sources rarely say whether results came before or after the market.