Everything the product claims, in one place, with the window, the costs and the limits printed beside each figure. The live account is graded against these numbers one night at a time on the live page; what failed is in the graveyard.
What held up after every correction we could throw at it. Backtests from $10,000, not promises; each line names its window.
The two windows are not comparable: 2015 to 2026 carries bitcoin’s boom; 2000 to 2026 carries the 2000 and 2008 crashes and no bitcoin. Pick one blend; they are not meant to be stacked. Registered tests R-118, R-121, R-125 to R-128 on the research page. Not investment advice.
Four independent contestants (factors, trend & alternatives, global & sectors, and a wildcard) each submitted fully specified entries before any were scored. Real fund histories only, no rebuilt funds; an entry wins only by beating the target at the same worst fall in every period. $10,000, growth per year and worst fall:
| No-crypto book | 2000 to 2026 | 2000 to 2012 | 2013 to 2026 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ULTRA alone | 15.6%, −27.6% | 8.4%, −26.1% | 22.2%, −27.7% | reference |
| ULTRA 80 / Foundry 20 (corrected) | 15.7%, −25.3% | 8.2%, −24.0% | 21.9%, −26.0% | withdrawn: failed the full replay (grave 180) |
| ULTRA 70 / Foundry 15 / defensive 15 (corrected) | 14.5%, −22.7% | 8.2%, −20.9% | 19.8%, −22.9% | withdrawn with Foundry (grave 180) |
| ULTRA 65 / cross-asset rotation 35 (wildcard) | 14.2%, −20.8% | 8.5%, −19.4% | 19.4%, −20.7% | won this test; withdrawn after the full replay as it would actually trade (grave 179) |
| ULTRA 60 / cross-asset trend 40 (trend & alternatives) | 13.2%, −18.8% | 9.3%, −17.9% | 16.7%, −18.8% | won, thinly |
| Five other entries | 12.2% to 13.3% a year, worst falls −19.3% to −25.2% | did not win | ||
Crypto track: the one challenger (engine 50 / bitcoin 25 / gold 25) ended with more money, 29.4% a year against 27.7%, but fell further (−24.4% against −21.7%) and lost at the same risk in every period. More bitcoin bought more money only by taking more risk. What to discount: the contestants are AI models whose knowledge runs past 2012, and a contest with eight entries produces some winners by chance; the rotation winner failed its full replay (grave 179); the trend winner is on a live watch and not in the product. Not investment advice.
On paper, the Foundry basket beside bitcoin and gold, and later beside the engine alone, looked like a small improvement. Each time we corrected the test (young funds rebuilt from today’s holdings, then a replay of every trade as it would really happen), the lead shrank. In the final replay (R-136, 27 September 2026) the engine alone ended with more money and the worst fall was no smaller. Foundry is not offered. Read grave 180 →
We tested adding income-paying funds to the engine. None earned a place. The best combinations below looked promising for one year, but their plain versions failed on 2001–2024 history (grave 169), and 26 of 27 income funds made less than the fund they are built on (grave 146). Bigger payouts do not mean bigger profits.
Test period: 5 Sep 2025–18 Sep 2026. No money withdrawn. Trading costs included. Both account sizes use the same IRA funding assumptions; see technical details.
Closed—not a recommendation. CHPY + XLE earned the most in this one-year test, a year picked during a chip boom. Its plain version, SMH + XLE, failed on 2001–2024 history: a deeper worst fall and nothing extra to show for it (grave 169). It is still recorded forward, for the record, not as a candidate.
The test targets 5% of the account in CHPY and 5% in XLE, taking that money from the engine’s stock holdings. Growth and biggest drop describe the whole account. Cash paid comes from these two funds and is already included in growth—not extra profit.
| Mode | Account growth | Biggest drop | Cash paid | Change vs engine alone |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| STEADY | +25.9% | −11.2% | $647.68 | +4.1 points |
| SELECT | +32.3% | −12.0% | $655.27 | +3.4 points |
| ULTRA | +38.7% | −16.0% | $665.71 | +2.4 points |
Growth covers the test period, not a typical year. Biggest drop is the largest fall from an account high. A change of +3.4 points means growth was 3.4 percentage points higher than the engine alone. At $5,000, STEADY grew less with these funds, although its biggest drop was smaller. Swipe to see all columns. Engine-only long-history results remain below.
Start with “Our take,” not the biggest return. “Not selected” means the combination did not meet the comparison we used. “Not enough evidence” means we cannot draw a dependable conclusion. “Closed · still observed” means it was picked for further testing, its plain version then failed on long history, and it is still recorded forward for the record—not a candidate.
Each example uses SELECT with a 10% target for the listed funds. Growth and biggest drop describe the whole account. Cash paid comes only from those funds and is included in growth. Some combinations include funds focused on growth rather than income.
336 combinations have results for $25,000. Showing the first 20. These are research results, not recommendations.
| Our take | Funds | Account growth | Biggest drop | Cash paid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Closed · still observedWhy?Picked on this one year. Its plain version failed on 2001–2024 history (grave 169), so it is no longer a candidate. It is still recorded forward, for the record. Technical detailsRegistered report-only forward comparison arm. Not a passed gate or trading approval; collection health is not asserted here. Plain twins (CHPY swapped for SMH) failed R-086 on 2001–2024 (grave 169); retired from the watchlist 2026-09-23. The registered forward comparison continues unchanged. Source: FORWARD-COMPARISON.md; registration dated 2026-09-22 | CHPY/MLPA | +29.9% | −12.7% | $712.92 |
Closed · still observedWhy?Picked on this one year. Its plain version failed on 2001–2024 history (grave 169), so it is no longer a candidate. It is still recorded forward, for the record. Technical detailsRegistered report-only forward comparison arm. Not a passed gate or trading approval; collection health is not asserted here. Plain twins (CHPY swapped for SMH) failed R-086 on 2001–2024 (grave 169); retired from the watchlist 2026-09-23. The registered forward comparison continues unchanged. Source: FORWARD-COMPARISON.md; registration dated 2026-09-22 | CHPY/MLPX | +30.9% | −12.3% | $670.31 |
Closed · still observedWhy?Picked on this one year. Its plain version failed on 2001–2024 history (grave 169), so it is no longer a candidate. It is still recorded forward, for the record. Technical detailsRegistered report-only forward comparison arm. Not a passed gate or trading approval; collection health is not asserted here. Plain twins (CHPY swapped for SMH) failed R-086 on 2001–2024 (grave 169); retired from the watchlist 2026-09-23. The registered forward comparison continues unchanged. Source: FORWARD-COMPARISON.md; registration dated 2026-09-22 | CHPY/XLE | +32.3% | −12.0% | $655.27 |
Not enough evidenceWhy?The results so far are not enough to show this is a dependable improvement. More testing is needed. Technical detailsHistorical results do not establish a validated upgrade. No individual pass is documented here. Source: Archived discovery studies | CHPY/GIAX/TDAQ (equal weight) | +28.8% | −13.8% | Not available |
Not selectedWhy?This combination did not give us both more money and smaller or equal losses than the alternatives we compared it with. Technical details0/36 valid scenarios beat both comparison sleeves in wealth with no deeper drawdown. No independent holdout. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md | AIPI/AMLP | +27.7% | −12.9% | $582.98 |
Not selectedWhy?This combination did not give us both more money and smaller or equal losses than the alternatives we compared it with. Technical details0/36 valid scenarios beat both comparison sleeves in wealth with no deeper drawdown. No independent holdout. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md | AIPI/MLPA | +27.7% | −12.9% | $577.58 |
Not selectedWhy?This combination did not give us both more money and smaller or equal losses than the alternatives we compared it with. It also uses leverage, which can amplify gains and losses. Technical details0/36 valid scenarios beat both comparison sleeves in wealth with no deeper drawdown. No independent holdout. Exposure: Weekly 1.2x. Leverage diagnostic only; not cleared for promotion. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md | AMDW/AMLP | +38.6% | −13.5% | $1160.75 |
Not selectedWhy?This combination did not give us both more money and smaller or equal losses than the alternatives we compared it with. It also uses leverage, which can amplify gains and losses. Technical details0/36 valid scenarios beat both comparison sleeves in wealth with no deeper drawdown. No independent holdout. Exposure: Weekly 1.2x. Leverage diagnostic only; not cleared for promotion. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md | AMDW/MLPA | +38.6% | −13.5% | $1158.04 |
Not selectedWhy?This combination did not give us both more money and smaller or equal losses than the alternatives we compared it with. It also uses leverage, which can amplify gains and losses. Technical details0/36 valid scenarios beat both comparison sleeves in wealth with no deeper drawdown. No independent holdout. Exposure: Weekly 1.2x. Leverage diagnostic only; not cleared for promotion. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md | AMZW/AMLP | +26.5% | −13.0% | $624.42 |
Not selectedWhy?This combination did not give us both more money and smaller or equal losses than the alternatives we compared it with. It also uses leverage, which can amplify gains and losses. Technical details0/36 valid scenarios beat both comparison sleeves in wealth with no deeper drawdown. No independent holdout. Exposure: Weekly 1.2x. Leverage diagnostic only; not cleared for promotion. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md | AMZW/MLPA | +26.2% | −13.1% | $617.88 |
Not selectedWhy?This combination did not give us both more money and smaller or equal losses than the alternatives we compared it with. It also uses leverage, which can amplify gains and losses. Technical details0/36 valid scenarios beat both comparison sleeves in wealth with no deeper drawdown. No independent holdout. Exposure: Weekly 1.2x. Leverage diagnostic only; not cleared for promotion. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md | AVGW/AMLP | +26.6% | −12.9% | $865.68 |
Not selectedWhy?This combination did not give us both more money and smaller or equal losses than the alternatives we compared it with. It also uses leverage, which can amplify gains and losses. Technical details0/36 valid scenarios beat both comparison sleeves in wealth with no deeper drawdown. No independent holdout. Exposure: Weekly 1.2x. Leverage diagnostic only; not cleared for promotion. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md | AVGW/MLPA | +26.4% | −12.9% | $861.30 |
Not enough evidenceWhy?The results so far are not enough to show this is a dependable improvement. More testing is needed. Technical detailsHistorical results do not establish a validated upgrade. No individual pass is documented here. Source: Archived discovery studies | BKLN/AMLP | +27.3% | −12.4% | Not available |
Not enough evidenceWhy?The results so far are not enough to show this is a dependable improvement. More testing is needed. Technical detailsHistorical results do not establish a validated upgrade. No individual pass is documented here. Source: Archived discovery studies | BKLN/MLPA | +26.1% | −12.4% | Not available |
Not selectedWhy?This combination did not give us both more money and smaller or equal losses than the alternatives we compared it with. Technical details0/36 valid scenarios beat both comparison sleeves in wealth with no deeper drawdown. No independent holdout. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md | CEPI/AMLP | +27.2% | −13.0% | $680.34 |
Not selectedWhy?This combination did not give us both more money and smaller or equal losses than the alternatives we compared it with. Technical details0/36 valid scenarios beat both comparison sleeves in wealth with no deeper drawdown. No independent holdout. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md | CEPI/MLPA | +27.5% | −13.3% | $676.01 |
Not selectedWhy?This combination did not give us both more money and smaller or equal losses than the alternatives we compared it with. Technical details0/36 valid scenarios beat both comparison sleeves in wealth with no deeper drawdown. No independent holdout. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md | CHPY/AIPI | +30.2% | −13.6% | $1084.84 |
Not enough evidenceWhy?The results so far are not enough to show this is a dependable improvement. More testing is needed. Technical detailsHistorical results do not establish a validated upgrade. No individual pass is documented here. Source: Archived discovery studies | CHPY/AIPI/MLPA | +29.0% | −12.8% | Not available |
Not selectedWhy?Higher returns came with bigger drops. We have not seen enough evidence that the extra risk is worth it. AMDW also uses leverage, which can amplify gains and losses. Technical detailsHigher wealth, but 0/36 scenarios beat both comparison sleeves with no deeper drawdown. Weekly 1.2x exposure: diagnostic only, not cleared for promotion. No independent holdout. Source: scoreboard-robustness.csv; SCOREBOARD-RESULTS.md | CHPY/AMDW | +41.2% | −14.2% | $1693.99 |
Closed · still observedWhy?Picked on this one year. Its plain version failed on 2001–2024 history (grave 169), so it is no longer a candidate. It is still recorded forward, for the record. Technical detailsRegistered report-only forward comparison arm. Not a passed gate or trading approval; collection health is not asserted here. Plain twins (CHPY swapped for SMH) failed R-086 on 2001–2024 (grave 169); retired from the watchlist 2026-09-23. The registered forward comparison continues unchanged. Source: FORWARD-COMPARISON.md; registration dated 2026-09-22 | CHPY/AMLP | +30.0% | −12.7% | $718.34 |
Swipe to see all columns. A missing result means we do not have a matching test for that account size—not that the funds cannot be bought. “Not available” means we did not separately record cash paid by those funds. Shorter tests are grouped separately because they are not a fair comparison with a longer test.
Costs are $1 per order plus 0.05% each way. The funds replace part of the engine’s equity allocation, subject to the existing pilot gate. The account-size switch holds funding constant. Whole shares, modeled next-close fills and settlement constraints are included. Conditional IRA assumes eligible unsettled proceeds may be reused; actual broker permissions remain unverified. No new broker orders, forward observations or trading authorization.
The $5,000 follow-up contains four basket results; unavailable baskets are not scaled from another account. The three engine modes at each size were computed directly. The catalog indexes eight archived basket studies. It does not invent combinations from individually tested funds. Legacy labels preserve explicit unequal weights. Later reconciled records take priority, using the earliest available full-window start within a source rather than selecting the best return.
The original sector study found XBI beat the bare engine jointly on wealth and drawdown in 35 of 36 configurations, but both existing sleeve candidates in only 1 of 36. Those counts are not from this account-size follow-up. Overlapping scenarios are not independent validation. No robust upgrade established.
Sources: combo, SOXX, expanded, TappAlpha, broad-income, scoreboard, sector and USOY follow-up result files. The public data download identifies the source and exact window for each displayed basket. This catalog is not a claim that every historical test used identical weights, fund mandates or data-vendor treatment.
What happens when the entire income sleeve grows from 10% to 30%? In this short test, larger sleeves generally paid more cash, but the account also suffered a bigger drop. None of these sizes is a recommended allocation.
A different, shorter test: 16 July–18 September 2026 · 46 trading sessions · SELECT · $25,000 starting account. These figures do not share the year-long window above. The $5,000/$25,000 selector above does not change this section.
Half the sleeve in each fund. A 20% sleeve means $5,000 total—$2,500 in CHPY and $2,500 in XLE—with the remaining target allocation in the engine.
| Account in sleeve | Ending account | Cash received | Biggest drop |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine only | $25,668 | — | −4.88% |
| 10% · $2,500 | $25,655 | $86 | −5.23% |
| 20% · $5,000 | $25,811 | $175 | −5.39% |
| 25% · $6,250 | $25,792 | $220 | −5.56% |
| 30% · $7,500 | $25,897 | $266 | −5.54% |
Within the sleeve: 35% CHPY, 35% XLE and 30% TMGN. These percentages describe the mix inside the sleeve—not percentages of the whole account.
| Account in sleeve | Ending account | Cash received | Biggest drop |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10% · $2,500 | $25,666 | $73 | −5.23% |
| 20% · $5,000 | $25,851 | $146 | −5.39% |
| 25% · $6,250 | $25,829 | $187 | −5.59% |
| 30% · $7,500 | $25,945 | $223 | −5.60% |
The trade-off: CHPY/XLE paid more cash at every size. Adding TMGN finished with slightly more money, but slightly deeper losses before rounding. This short window does not establish the best mix or size. The separate forward comparisons remain at 10%.
Cash received is for the entire test period—not per month. It comes only from the sleeve and is already included in ending account value, not extra profit. No withdrawals were taken. The engine-only dash means no income sleeve, not that the engine received no distributions.
Whole shares; conditional-IRA settlement assumptions without borrowing; a 2% sizing reserve; prior-close sizing and modeled next-close execution; $1 per order plus 5 basis points each way. Sleeve allocations replace core equity rather than adding borrowed money. Actual holdings can differ from targets. Existing monthly sleeve and QQQ gate rules apply—not an immediate daily stop. Whole-share sizing and rebalancing make outcomes uneven across sizes. The full sensitivity run covered 54 configurations across STEADY, SELECT and ULTRA at 5 and 20 basis points; these tables show only SELECT at 5 basis points. Historical discovery, not independent forward evidence, a crash test, or a forecast. Source: allocation-sensitivity.csv, generated by allocation_sensitivity.py.
No patterns, no predictions, no indicators. The engine acts only on the one thing our research showed to be forecastable — volatility — and everything else exists to keep it honest.
A daily read of realized volatility against a fixed target. Calm markets earn more exposure; violent ones earn less. The exact calibration is the product.
Three modes. STEADY spreads the engine across the S&P, the NASDAQ and gold and steps each fully aside in confirmed downtrends. SELECT runs the NASDAQ alone with the same exit — more than the no-exit rule earned, at well under half its worst drawdown. ULTRA is SELECT’s rule run hotter — more exposure, the same exit, a −27% worst case instead of the −58% the old no-exit version carried.
De-risks the moment the target falls; re-levers only through a deliberate threshold — fast toward safety, patient toward risk, still a handful of trades a year. Whole shares, sells before buys, sized from your live account value, one action per day at most.
Installs inert. Real orders require a file you create yourself; delete it and it's off. Never margin, never past available cash, everything logged to your own Discord.
Two index ETFs, once a day after the bell. No feeds, no subscriptions, no order flow.
Completed daily closes inform the next target exposure. The founder’s evening preview currently runs at 5:35 PM ET / 2:35 PM PT.
Read the preview in Discord and act yourself, or arm the separate executor. The founder’s execution run is scheduled for 10:45 AM ET / 7:45 AM PT on trading days, using the previous session’s close for its signal.
How these figures are computed. The historical engine figures come from a full-history test that decides from the previous close, derives its position from what the account holds each session, buys only with settled cash under the executor’s own budget, and keeps its 2% sizing reserve, the way the live executor does. Whole shares, $1 a leg, dividends included, modelled next-close fills rather than the 7:45 AM Pacific execution price. Idle and parked cash earn the historical three-month Treasury yield, credited on the previous close’s settled balance — a rate assumption, not a model of any cash fund’s shares, distributions or fees. A worst fall is what this test produced, not a limit on what an account could lose; it moves about two points on the cash assumption alone, because a different cash balance buys a different whole number of shares. The full-history test and its frozen inputs are in the repository; the ledger entry is a test whose rules were written down in advance. The same figures are drawn as engine cards.
The deep tables below measure every engine. Every claim we publish falls into one of four evidence grades, and every grave in the graveyard is stamped with the grade of its own autopsy. Most products only ever show you C and call it S.
swipe for all columns →
| grade | meaning | where |
|---|---|---|
| S | live — real money, published nightly, deposits excluded | track record |
| A | validated — 15+ years, era splits, controls, episode ledger | core tables |
| B | measured — honest backtest, shorter window or proxy funds | sleeves, cash comparison |
| C | arithmetic — compounding math; projections, not evidence | projection tables |
| mode | 2009–2026 CAGR’09–26 | worst DD | full 1999–2026’99–26 | worst ever |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| STEADY | 13.8% | −18% | 11.7% | −18% |
| SELECT | 18.5% | −20% | 14.7% | −21% |
| ULTRA | 22.2% | −27% | 17.3% | −27% |
| S&P 500 buy & holdS&P B&H | ~15% | −34% | ~9% | −55% |
Buy & hold is the academic comparison. The one most people actually face is leaving the money in savings. Here it is — measured in what the money will buy, not what the statement says.
| after inflation | 1999–2026 · worst’99–26 · worst | $5,000 becomes$5k → | since 2009 · worst’09– · worst | $5,000 becomes$5k → |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Savings (3-month T-bill) | −0.6% · −24% | $4,281 | −1.2% · −24% | $4,271 |
| STEADY | 8.9% · −19% | $51,532 | 11.0% · −19% | $31,292 |
| SELECT | 11.8% · −24% | $106,830 | 15.5% · −24% | $63,548 |
| ULTRA | 14.3% · −30% | $195,259 | 19.1% · −30% | $108,313 |
| QQQ buy & hold | 8.0% · −84% | $40,896 | 17.4% · −39% | $84,578 |
Read the drawdowns before the returns. Since 2009 a NASDAQ rule with no exit and QQQ buy & hold finish almost together — in this sample, that rule offered little separation from the index on return. The exit engines separate from both — SELECT 18.5% and ULTRA 22.2% a year since 2009 — at a third to half the drawdown. The separation is in the other column. Over the full cycle, buy & hold’s worst real drawdown is −84% — $5,000 of purchasing power becoming about $800 before recovering — and the historical record is full of accounts that sold there. ULTRA’s worst was −30%, SELECT’s −24%, STEADY’s −19%. Buy-and-hold returns exist on paper; surviving the path is the product.
Inflation averaged 2.60% a year across both windows, so a savings account has a negative real return in both: $5,000 left in cash since 2009 buys about $4,271 of goods today. Measured in purchasing power rather than dollars, cash’s worst drawdown since 1999 is −23.9%, it spent 94% of all days below a previous high, and its longest stretch underwater was 17.6 years — longer than any equity drawdown in this sample. “Cash has no drawdown” is an artefact of measuring in the unit that is shrinking. We use the 3-month T-bill because it moves with rates the way savings rates do; note it understates a good savings account in 2009–2015, when top accounts paid near 1% and bills paid almost nothing.
Illustrative compounding — not an account-size backtest. These tables apply the same historical rate at every starting balance. Actual results also depend on whole-share rounding, costs and cash settlement.
| starting accountstart | STEADY · ~11.4%/yr | SELECT · ~13.7%/yr | ULTRA · ~16.2%/yr | BUY & HOLD · ~8.2%/yr | SAVINGS · ~1.9%/yr | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3y | 5y | 10y | 3y | 5y | 10y | 3y | 5y | 10y | 3y | 5y | 10y | ||||
| $3,000 | $4,153 | $5,158 | $8,867 | $4,409 | $5,698 | $10,824 | $4,705 | $6,351 | $13,447 | $3,802 | $4,453 | $6,610 | $3,177 | $3,301 | $3,632 |
| $5,000 | $6,921 | $8,596 | $14,778 | $7,348 | $9,497 | $18,039 | $7,842 | $10,586 | $22,411 | $6,337 | $7,422 | $11,017 | $5,295 | $5,501 | $6,053 |
| $10,000 | $13,842 | $17,192 | $29,556 | $14,695 | $18,994 | $36,079 | $15,684 | $21,171 | $44,822 | $12,674 | $14,844 | $22,034 | $10,590 | $11,003 | $12,106 |
| $25,000 | $34,605 | $42,980 | $73,891 | $36,738 | $47,486 | $90,197 | $39,209 | $52,928 | $112,056 | $31,686 | $37,109 | $55,084 | $26,475 | $27,507 | $30,264 |
| 3y | 5y | 10y | |
|---|---|---|---|
| STEADY | $4,153 | $5,158 | $8,867 |
| SELECT | $4,409 | $5,698 | $10,824 |
| ULTRA | $4,705 | $6,351 | $13,447 |
| BUY & HOLD | $3,802 | $4,453 | $6,610 |
| SAVINGS | $3,177 | $3,301 | $3,632 |
| 3y | 5y | 10y | |
|---|---|---|---|
| STEADY | $6,921 | $8,596 | $14,778 |
| SELECT | $7,348 | $9,497 | $18,039 |
| ULTRA | $7,842 | $10,586 | $22,411 |
| BUY & HOLD | $6,337 | $7,422 | $11,017 |
| SAVINGS | $5,295 | $5,501 | $6,053 |
| 3y | 5y | 10y | |
|---|---|---|---|
| STEADY | $13,842 | $17,192 | $29,556 |
| SELECT | $14,695 | $18,994 | $36,079 |
| ULTRA | $15,684 | $21,171 | $44,822 |
| BUY & HOLD | $12,674 | $14,844 | $22,034 |
| SAVINGS | $10,590 | $11,003 | $12,106 |
| 3y | 5y | 10y | |
|---|---|---|---|
| STEADY | $34,605 | $42,980 | $73,891 |
| SELECT | $36,738 | $47,486 | $90,197 |
| ULTRA | $39,209 | $52,928 | $112,056 |
| BUY & HOLD | $31,686 | $37,109 | $55,084 |
| SAVINGS | $26,475 | $27,507 | $30,264 |
Compounded at the full-cycle 2000–2026 rates — the same window as the chart below, dot-com crash included. The buy & hold column is the honest yardstick — the gap between it and the three engines is what the discipline is worth, and it is not a promise: history is one sample, and every mode spends years underwater along the way. Watch the live line rather than trusting a table.
The same $5,000, four disciplines, through the dot-com crash, 2008, COVID and 2022. The lower panel is the honest half: how far below its own high-water mark each one sat, every day. STEADY never went deeper than -18%; buy & hold spent years past -54%. ULTRA's -26% is the price of its extra compounding — it earns the most of the three and it hurts the most. Log scale — equal vertical distance is equal percentage move, which is the only honest way to draw 26 years. Notice where the lines separate: not in the bull runs, but in the craters.
The dashed line is the one to respect. Buying and holding the S&P 500 is the gold standard of investing — roughly 9–15% a year depending on the era, for zero effort, and most professionals never beat it. It is the default your money already deserves, and the only honest reason to run anything more complicated is what this chart shows: beat it, or take meaningfully less pain earning it. That dashed line is the bar we measure ourselves against — never the zero line.
Same $3,000 start, same full-cycle rates as the projection table above. “You put in” counts the start plus every deposit — $50 a month for ten years is $3,000 + $50×120 = $9,000 of your own money; the strategy’s work is the distance between that column and its own. Deposits buy toward target on the next run, so every contribution is also a free rebalance.
After five years · starting from $3,000
swipe for all columns →
| adding | you put input in | savings | STEADY | SELECT | ULTRAULTRA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| none | $3,000 | $3,296 | $5,158 | $5,698 | $6,351 |
| $50/mo | $6,000 | $6,439 | $9,121 | $9,882 | $10,792 |
| $100/mo | $9,000 | $9,583 | $13,085 | $14,065 | $15,232 |
| $200/mo | $15,000 | $15,869 | $21,013 | $22,432 | $24,113 |
| $500/mo | $33,000 | $34,728 | $44,796 | $47,533 | $50,754 |
After ten years · starting from $3,000
swipe for all columns →
| adding | you put input in | savings | STEADY | SELECT | ULTRAULTRA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| none | $3,000 | $3,621 | $8,867 | $10,824 | $13,447 |
| $50/mo | $9,000 | $10,218 | $19,645 | $22,953 | $27,288 |
| $100/mo | $15,000 | $16,815 | $30,424 | $35,083 | $41,129 |
| $200/mo | $27,000 | $30,008 | $51,981 | $59,342 | $68,810 |
| $500/mo | $63,000 | $69,588 | $116,653 | $132,120 | $151,856 |
The “none” rows are the strategy alone — identical to the projection table above, same math. At this account size the habit is worth more than the strategy: going from nothing to $50 a month roughly doubles the ten-year outcome. Held for twenty years, $200 a month at the same rates builds roughly $197,000 on STEADY, $263,000 on SELECT and $364,000 on ULTRA from $51,000 contributed. Same caveat as everything on this page: compounded history, not a promise.
Every term this page leans on, in plain words. None of them require a finance background — if a sentence here still reads like homework, that is our failure, not yours.
Ready to decide? The engines and the price are on the front page. Not convinced? Read what died first.
An idea earns its place through testing.
Our research layer checks proposals against the Graveyard, records the rules and rejection criteria, then tries to disprove the case. It cannot change a frozen rule, approve an expansion or place a trade.
Pre-release refinement. Advisory recommendations. Release gates remain final.
“Under observation” does not mean trading. “Applied improvement” describes completed research or implementation work, not approval to sell an expansion. R-numbers are reference IDs.
Loading the research ledger…