Bottom line up front
Only the most recent public fills are visible, so this audit covers the data covered rather than full account history. The account is down 92.3% ($1,504 in realised losses) across 1,887 closed episodes in the data covered. The deepest decline in this window reached 99.5%, and the highest balance in this window was $25,126 before collapsing to a lowest balance in this window of $126. The core problem is not volatility or bad luck: it is systematic over-leverage combined with revenge trading and position-sizing that scales into losses. Short SILVER positions dominate the damage, and the account exhibits five distinct revenge trades following losses, each opened at larger notional size than the preceding loss warranted.
What the data shows
This account traded 1,883 closed episodes across eight instruments in the data covered, but the story is almost entirely SILVER (689 episodes) and BTC (1,188 episodes). SILVER produced $1,385 in realised losses on a 44.3% win rate; BTC lost $119 on a 23.5% win rate. The long/short split reveals asymmetry: shorts lost $1,239 (30.3% win rate) while longs lost $265 (31.7% win rate), but the real damage came from short-side sizing. The highest balance in this window of $25,126 was reached on 2026-02-25, then fell to $126 by 2026-03-04—a nine-day collapse of $25,000.
Realised PnL sits at -$1,168 after fees. Gross fees paid were $336.73 on $10.2M in notional volume (99.7% maker), so fee drag was material but not the primary driver of loss. The account's win rate of 31% with an expectancy of -$0.80 per trade means the account was structurally unprofitable from the outset. A profit factor of 0.62 confirms this: for every dollar won, the account lost $1.61.
The behavioural data is stark. Five revenge trades are logged, each opened after a loss and each at notional sizes between $297k and $497k. Averaging down appears in five episodes, including a BTC long on 2025-08-14 at 119,941 that accumulated 21 fills and closed at -$0.09. Five FOMO re-entries are recorded on BTC within minutes of closing prior positions, producing net losses of -$0.26 across the five attempts. The account also recorded five oversized losers, each 3.3x to 4.3x the median loss size.
Trade quality
Win rate of 31% is below breakeven for any edge-dependent strategy. Profit factor of 0.62 means the account lost $1.61 for every dollar won. Expectancy of -$0.80 per trade confirms the account was unprofitable on a per-trade basis. The win/loss ratio of 1.38 (average win of $4.24 vs. average loss of -$3.07) is inverted: winners were only 38% larger than losers, which is insufficient to overcome a 31% win rate. A max loss streak of 20 consecutive losses occurred in the data covered, indicating extended periods of no edge.
Post-mortems
SILVER short, 2026-02-06, 74.60 entry to 75.77 exit: -$192.74 loss
This trade opened at 74.60 and closed at 75.77 in 1.39 hours with a max notional position of $18,458. It is flagged as both an oversized loser (3.33x median loss) and a revenge trade following a prior loss. The structural stop (ATR 14 1H) was 5.12% away, meaning the account allowed a 1.17-point adverse move (1.57% of entry) before exiting. This was the single largest loss in the top five.
SILVER short, 2026-02-06, 77.75 entry to 78.14 exit: -$179.95 loss
Opened at 77.75, closed at 78.14 in 0.34 hours with max notional of $35,999. Flagged as oversized loser (4.2x median) and revenge trade. The structural stop was 2.55% away; the account took a 0.39-point loss (0.50% of entry) in 20 minutes. The notional size ($35,999) is 1.95x the prior loss's notional, consistent with escalation after a loss.
SILVER short, 2026-02-06, 75.71 entry to 75.97 exit: -$160.24 loss
Opened and closed on the same day, 0.27 hours duration, max notional $45,935. Oversized loser (3.44x median). Structural stop 3.72% away; actual loss 0.26 points (0.34% of entry). This is the third consecutive short on SILVER within hours, each at escalating notional size.
What the risk simulator reveals
Under a 1% hard stop rule, the account would have produced -$107.89 in realised PnL with a deepest decline in this window of 8.99%, stopping out of 6 episodes early. Under a 2% rule, losses would have doubled to -$215.78 with a deepest decline of 17.95%. Under a 4% rule, losses would have reached -$431.57 with a deepest decline of 35.75%. In all three scenarios, win rate remained at 47.55%, suggesting that hard stops would have prevented the largest losses but also eliminated some winners. The simulator demonstrates that even modest position protection would have reduced the deepest decline in this window from 99.5% to single digits.
Open positions
No open positions at the time of this audit.
Honest summary
- Structural unprofitability: A 31% win rate with expectancy of -$0.80 per trade and profit factor of 0.62 indicates the account had no edge. This was not a deepest decline in this window problem; it was a fundamental mismatch between win rate and position sizing.
- Revenge trading and escalation: Five logged revenge trades, each opened at larger notional size than the preceding loss, combined with five oversized losers (3.3x to 4.3x median loss size). The account systematically increased leverage after losses rather than reducing it.
- Concentration and leverage: SILVER and BTC account for 1,877 of 1,887 closed episodes. Notional positions reached $45,935 on a starting balance of $1,630, implying 28x leverage. The highest balance in this window of $25,126 was followed by a 99.5% decline, indicating the account was operating at the edge of liquidation.
- Sample scope: This audit covers only the most recent 10,000 public fills. Earlier account history is not visible, so the full trajectory of this wallet cannot be assessed.