← All articles
Forensics

We debunked our own backtests — and rebuilt everything

2026-08-018 min readTrading Bot House

In May 2026 we discovered that almost every backtest number we had ever published was wrong. Not slightly wrong — wrong by a factor of six. This is the full story of how it happened, what the honest numbers turned out to be, and the five specific ways a backtest lies that we now check for automatically. We publish it because every "proven strategy" you have ever been sold suffers from at least one of these.

The numbers we believed
Moonshot rate we quoted
45–55%
"of runner alerts reach 10x"
Honest, forward-only number
6.8%
same detector, bias removed
"Early ramp" trigger claim
51%
reach 10x after trigger
Its real, causal rate
2.5%
entering when you actually could

We run a memecoin scanner that fires alerts when tokens look promising. To rank the detectors we backtested them against our own alert history — thousands of real alerts with recorded outcomes. The results looked spectacular, we quoted them in our marketing, and they were garbage. Three separate mechanisms inflated them, and none of them is exotic: they are the default failure modes of anyone backtesting anything.

Lie #1 — look-ahead: measuring from the peak you couldn't have known

Our outcome database stored each token's lifetime peak price. When a backtest asked "did this alert reach 10x?", it compared the entry against a peak that was often reached before the moment a live trader could have entered — or that was only knowable in hindsight. A signal that fires while the token is already collapsing from its top still counted as a 10x winner, because the peak was in the record.

When we re-measured with a forward-only tracker — peak ratcheted strictly from the alert timestamp onward, polled live every two minutes — the 10x rate of our flagship detector fell from the 45–55% we had been quoting to 6.8%.

Lie #2 — survivorship: the database only remembered the winners

Tokens that rugged in the first minutes often never made it into the tracking table that the backtest read — they died before the first snapshot. The pool the backtest saw was pre-filtered to survivors, which alone added roughly 30 percentage points to any "reaches 2x" rate computed from it. The fix was brutal but simple: log every alert at fire time with its live market data, before knowing anything about its future.

Lie #3 — non-causal combos: crediting a signal with another signal's future

Our "consensus" analysis asked: when detectors A and B both fire, how often does the token moon? The bug: it took the maximum peak across all detectors' records — including detections that happened after the combo moment. A combo could get credit for a run that started hours before the second detector ever fired. Measured causally — outcome from the moment the combo actually completed — the headline combo's 2x rate fell from 78% to 17%.

Backtest profit is trivial to manufacture on known past data. It is the same as memorizing the answers to last year's exam and calling yourself a genius. — the lesson we wrote on the office wall
What we rebuilt

The purge forced the architecture we should have started with:

Five checks that catch a lying backtest
Why trust a company that just admitted its numbers were fake?

Because the alternative is trusting companies that have the same bugs and never looked. Every mechanism above is the default outcome of backtesting naively — we found ours because we went hunting for them, published the downgrade, and wired the checks into the product so they run on every strategy automatically, including yours.

Run your strategy through the same engine

Describe it in plain English. The AI compiles it; the anti-bias engine tests it on up to 3 years of real data and shows the warnings before the profit. Free to start.

Test a strategy free → See famous strategies fail