Mean Reversion Strategy
Independent provider directory
The method Guides Reading a record Glossary FAQ See it run live
Guide

How to verify a mean-reversion record

Four steps to confirm a single past reversion trade yourself, no spreadsheet required.

The four-step check

You do not need to audit an entire history to know whether a reversion record is honest. Confirm one past trade end to end and you have learned the thing that matters most: whether the record can be checked at all. The four steps below run from the cheapest, fastest check to the single decisive one.

Verify in four steps

1. Start with the count

Find the total trade count and confirm the losers are in it. A win rate quoted with no number of trades behind it — or with the losing reversions hidden — fails before you go further. On the worked example the swing figure reads 74.4% across 78 trades; the 78 is the part you are checking for, and the percentage is meaningless without it. This is the test set out in full on a re-runnable record.

2. Demand a continuous period and a drawdown

Look for an unbroken run rather than a curated stretch, and find the drawdown figure. For a reversion strategy the drawdown is the real risk number, because the danger is the rare trade that does not revert. A record that shows a return with no drawdown is hiding the only number that tells you whether the strategy is survivable.

3. Find the independent reviewer

Check that a named outside party has read the underlying statements as data. A platform leaderboard does not count as an audit, and a glowing testimonial does not count as a review.

4. Confirm one trade on-chain

This is the decisive step, and the one most records cannot survive. Take a single historical reversion trade and match its published fields against its Bitcoin-anchored receipt. Because the receipt was written before the reversion played out, a match proves those fields were fixed in advance. One verified trade outweighs a hundred screenshots. Here is exactly what that looks like:

How a mean-reversion trade reads a stretched priceLine chart: a price drifts along a dashed mean line, then stretches sharply below it into a shaded band, where the model issues a trade; the price then reverts back toward the mean, which is where the trade is closed. The figure illustrates the single premise behind every model on the site - that an unusually large gap from a typical level tends to close.typical level (the “mean”)stretched far below — model issues the tradereverts to the mean — trade closedprice over time →
Every model on this site rests on this one picture: a price stretched unusually far from its own typical level tends to snap back toward it. The models differ only in the clock over which they expect that snap-back to happen.
Worked example · illustrative

The trade below is invented for the walkthrough, not a specific real call. The procedure is exactly what you would run on a genuine issued trade.

  1. Take the issued trade and its five fields. Say it reads: long a stretched index, entry 198.40, target 201.10, stop 197.20, grade B, issued 13:48 UTC.
  2. Rebuild the fingerprint. The model concatenates those exact fields in a fixed order and runs them through SHA-256 — a one-way function that turns any input into a single fixed-length fingerprint. The same fields always produce the same fingerprint; one changed digit produces a completely different one.
  3. Open the on-chain receipt. The OpenTimestamps receipt published with the trade names the Bitcoin block its fingerprint was anchored in. Confirm the fingerprint you rebuilt matches the one in the receipt.
  4. Check the clock. Look up when that block was mined, on any public explorer such as mempool.space. If the block time sits before the reversion resolved, the trade — entry, target, stop and grade together — was provably fixed in advance. That is the whole proof.

Try to break it: imagine the entry was nudged from 198.40 to 197.60 after the price dropped further. Step 2 would then produce a fingerprint that no longer matches the receipt from step 3, and the change is exposed. That is why a confirmed receipt beats any screenshot — it fails loudly the instant a field is touched.

Net: steps 1 to 3 take a couple of minutes and screen out most of the field; step 4 is the one that cannot be faked. A record that survives step 4 has given you something you can re-derive for yourself rather than merely take on trust. The mechanism behind it is set out on issued before the outcome.

Keep reading
Issued before the outcomeThe timestamp mechanism step 4 relies on.A re-runnable recordWhat steps 1 and 2 are really checking for.Is mean reversion profitable?Whether the strategy is worth checking out at all.Grades that are measuredThe grade field you confirm in step 4.