This update will provide additional (more specific) trade protocol architecture descriptions and options for future forward decisions for Sovoron side (private client), various other licensed users, and various Token project holders.
Please understand, in advance of reading this update that the EPIC software has an instruction set nearing 9300 instructions in the trade execution tree and that a communication update as provide below is described in the most simple form possible.
In short, the software has three primary operating protocols, the first two are an either/or decision and the third included with either of the first two.
The first option is a steady low risk protocol. The low risk protocol is essentially any version of software (the most recent before an update) that has accomplished “stability”. The most recent software version (prior to update) provides a 60% – 150% annual ROI with a maximum interim drawdown of about 3-7% at any given time. At any time, while pushing forward in development, our team can settle on a version (such as this example) and not continue development of new versions.
At one time in our history, this wasn’t the case because “stability” wasn’t achieved. This is different now, in that “stability” has been achieved and is quite remarkable. However, there is always in development forward, a decision to be made in terms of associated perceived risk. I will explain further.
The second option is to continue to develop and push forward with new versions of software (as with the most recent update). To be clear, this option comes with “stability” also, but will experience larger draw-downs (which can be determined in advance – the size of possible draw-down limits). The reason “stability” is still in place for either option 1 or 2 is that the 3rd protocol mentioned above is the high probability protocol that almost always wins and will “back-fill” any draw-downs as they occur in cycles of trade. The argument for using option 2 and pushing forward in development is that mathematically in oil trade for example, there is a return maximum available of approximately 2000% per annum. This is possible mathematically but unlikely achievable. However, our team believes that with time we can reach 350% – 700% and likely closer to 350%.
In summary, the first option is to settle on the most recent software version performance, whatever that may be, and not continue further in development pushing forward for more ROI. The second option is to continue pushing forward for greater ROI but the interim draw-downs are more significant. In either instance, the third protocol activates when the draw-down risk limit has been hit. In option 1 the risk limit is approximately 6% at most at any given time. In Option 2 the risk limit can be significantly greater. In the most recent sequence of trade, late last week, the draw-down (depending on account type and size) was 6% -14%. However, it is estimated that this specific version (the latest) will achieve 350% ROI over time.
So what happens during a peak draw-down period?
This is when the third protocol activates in the software. To the casual observer, token holder or private account client this can be a pensive duration of time. In other words, when the third protocol (we call it the back-stop protocol) activates, it functions differently than the first two option protocols. I will explain.
The first two options are designed as a sequencing protocol, that provide a certain ROI within sequence of trade over hours, days or even weeks. The method is primarily described as position trading with a hint of swing trading – by the development team it is described as a dot plotting protocol. The mandate of the protocols is to provide a low dollar cost average trading against or with trend and when the trend turns (if trading against), if even just a pull back, then the sequence is in profit and typically closed. This works in about 9 in 10 occasions, however, when trade becomes “divergent”, usually because of an event in the world or central banking interventions and such, a draw-down can occur. This happens because the trade action of the instrument of trade becomes algorithmically “historically divergent”. The price action becomes “divergent” on all time frames and thus a draw-down occurs.
Then the “back-stop” protocol activates. I will explain further.
In the most recent sequence of trade, at a key decision area (historically the price action will find resistance or support 9 in 10 times) as seen late last week, when the price action is at its most extended point in that probability, EPIC software is at or near its maximum hold position in the positioning protocol, and at and around the maximum extension (9 in 10 times) it the sizes up on an intra-day basis to “catch” a pull back. When it is firing at size intra-day for that reversal (even if the reversal is very temporary) it requires algorithmic price action, if it encounters action at a primary extension pivot (as was seen late last week) that is algorithmically sloppy then it will draw-down and when the maximum risk is hit the software zeros out the position and sits and waits.
It is waiting for the third protocol (the back-stop protocol) to activate.
The back-stop protocol is different. There are three primary differences;
- It is not a “positioning” protocol, it is only high frequency intra-day.
- It has a much smaller allowance for off-side execution than the “in size” key extension pivot trading described above. The key pivot in size trading described above can have significant range allowance for the “in-size” executions. The back-stop protocol is different in that it is very, very tight, and only allows for a very limited stop range at each execution.
- And the last primary difference, which is the most significant difference, the back-stop protocol of the software will not fire unless all time frames from the 15 second to the 1 month time frame (charted) are algorithmicall alligned. This is why it near never loses. However, this can mean waiting for hours, days or even a short number of weeks for it to fire. This can be pensive for some observers. The wait. The trade-off however, is that it near never loses and when it does it is very, very small (the loss).
So the the obvious question becomes, “if the third protocol (the back-stop high frequency protocol) nearly never loses, then why not just use that protocol all the time and only that protocol?”. And the answer is simply that the ROI of that protocol is estimated to be about 150%-300% per year (at this time unknown) and doesn’t allow for pushing forward further development toward the moonshot. The other reason we have not deployed it as the standard is that it does frustrate some observers, in that waiting on it to fire can take time.
Something else to consider is that quite often, the back-stop protocol doesn’t take a lot of time to provide the “back-fill” executions. In other words, quite often when trade action becomes algorithmically divergent and “sloppy” very shortly after that occurance, trade will become very algorithmically alligned on all time frames and the back-stop protocol back-fills the draw-down and then some and then the new positioning sequence commences. We have seen this happen many times over seven years of development. It usually does not take long for the back-stop protocol to back-fill with significant upside ROI. However, in some instances it can take days or a few weeks.
It is also important to note that the ROI expectations of the slow and steady protocol decision (the most recent version before update) or the ROI expections of the newest push forward version release is not affected by the draw-down and back-fill process. The third protocol (the back-fill protocol) has never failed – it is literally a back-stop protocol that we are 100% confident in – in that it does do its job every time. Again, the down-side is that it can take time.
Further communication and understanding.
In the trading Boot-Camps we dive much deeper in to the protocols in an effort to help train traders to be better, we also often provide video webinar updates, a live trading room, white paper updates and our clients are also encouraged to reach out to our team anytime for more clarification.
We want your vote, your opinions and any feedback.
This is a general request for the token holders of any of our tokenized projects to provide us your vote, would you prefer we stay with the slow and steady protocol of the most recent version (prior to update) or would you prefer we continue developing toward the moon-shot. We honestly would like to know. Primarily because our tokenized projects are provided for a small tribe and not developed and launched as a broad market tokenized project like most. Our tokenized project(s) intent is to provide stable returns for holders and possibly a better hedge against a financial reset than most other tokenized projects or conventional markets may or may not provide. SO WE ASK that each token holder provide your vote on Session app to the treasury so we can make a determination for the tribe. We will communicate the results prior to the start of the next sequence of trade. For now, the software is in Protocol 3 mode and will only fire intra-day to back-fill the most recent draw-down. In other words, you have hours to weeks to provide us with your feedback – we do not know. It could be Monday and the back-fill is done.
And to our private side clients, feel free to reach out anytime and let us know your preference. Out default position is always to forge forward in our development toward the 2000% moonshot only because we have the back-stop protocol that back-fills draw-downs as each occasion occurs. This is the “stability” of the software. If we did not have the “stability” 100% in place this would obviously be different.
At regular intervals we will release the trade executions which will allow those wanting to look in to execution protocols more deeply can do so at each update.
And a final note, as questions come to us for clarication, we will update this document and advise of the update.
Thank you for supporting our journey toward the best trading software in the world.