2026-01-09 12:26:26

Two interesting projects are running in parallel. One is a fixed delta savings application, essentially integrating risk management concepts into asset management tools—by dynamically adjusting positions to maintain a stable exposure. From another perspective, I am developing a perpetual futures trading robot, with the core goal of reducing trading risk and improving operational efficiency.

Although the problem-solving approaches seem different, they actually point to the same question: how can participants in the crypto market profit more safely? The fixed delta logic is suitable for long-term asset allocation, while the trading robot is suitable for active management investors. Each project addresses the pain points of different user groups. The upcoming development will be very exciting—it will not only validate the product design but also reveal which risk management tools the market truly needs.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

17 Likes

Reward
17
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BrokenYield

· 21m ago

fixed delta sounds nice in theory till volatility spikes and your "stable exposure" gets obliterated lmao

Reply0

MetaDreamer

· 9h ago

Alright, two paths lead to the same destination, but it's just unknown which one can truly survive. Fixing delta sounds good, but I feel most people still want to take a gamble... Is the robot side more reliable? Everyone is talking about risk reduction, but in the end, it's still about who can withstand the drawdown. I'm a bit curious about how the actual data will turn out later; theoretical discussions and real-world results are too different. Can those who invest with fixed delta resist chasing highs? That's the real test.

View OriginalReply0

YieldChaser

· 01-09 12:56

The fixed delta approach really feels like "lazy people's wealth management," but I have more confidence in your trading robot... After all, those who actively trade are the ones truly making money. Can the robot genuinely reduce risk, or is it just another tool to cut the leeks... Let's wait and see. Hmm... It seems both are trying to solve the ultimate question of "how to survive and make money," which is quite interesting. Fixed delta sounds fancy, but will it be very laggy in actual operation... I understand the logic of the futures robot, but the hardest part is making the backtest data look good, only to have the live trading blow up... Both paths are running, just see who can come out ahead first. Can it guarantee not to get liquidated? That's what I care about most, 😅. What does the market need... Actually, what is most needed is probably a tool that doesn't lose money.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeGazer

· 01-09 12:56

The fixed delta strategy does have some merits, but honestly, trading bots are the real game-changer. The automation and risk control sector will explode. Bots and manual trading are completely different eras. I'm curious to see how you'll handle black swan events. If perpetual futures bots can truly be stable, that would be a major weapon... but too much theta decay is also a pitfall. Basically, it's about building your own version of a risk management toolkit. I like this approach.

View OriginalReply0

LadderToolGuy

· 01-09 12:51

Fixed delta sounds good, but how many can actually be implemented... Everyone is talking about risk management now, but a wave of pullback could wipe everything out. Wait, does the bot have any mechanisms to prevent backtest overfitting? This is very important.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHunter420

· 01-09 12:46

It all sounds like risk management, but I am more optimistic about the robot direction... After all, manual trading is too easily influenced by emotions. The fixed delta logic is clear, but I feel the market isn't ready to accept such a "boring" and steady solution. The ones who can truly make money are always those willing to let bots operate for them 24/7. Can you run some backtest data? I want to see how the actual results look. If these two projects can really be implemented, in a few months we'll know which one is more in tune... Where's the bet?

View OriginalReply0

MidnightTrader

· 01-09 12:44

Spot Guardian, Futures Hunter. Fixed delta is indeed impressive, but brother, if your trading robot is truly reliable, it could solve my pain points of operating at night, and that would be a win.

View OriginalReply0

blocksnark

· 01-09 12:37

I've been wanting to try the fixed delta approach for a while, but I don't know if it will run as smoothly in practice. Are robot trades reliable? It seems like the "automatic loss" of retail investors is truly automated. Both approaches are about managing risk, but honestly, we need real data to determine which one is better. Perpetual futures bots sound good, but I'm worried it might be another high FDD project. Fixed delta seems safer, at least the logic is clear. Can robots really achieve stable profits? I think most are still just tools for the operators. Both paths are being explored, and I feel the market probably needs both. Finally, someone is seriously doing risk management, but whether bots are reliable is still questionable. Fixed delta vs. robots—welcome to the era of "choice paralysis." Futures trading bots are a deep water area, but if they can truly reduce risk, it's worth paying attention to.

View OriginalReply0