<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>均值回归 on Lynx Tech Blog</title><link>https://blog.lynxflow.co/en/tags/%E5%9D%87%E5%80%BC%E5%9B%9E%E5%BD%92/</link><description>Recent content in 均值回归 on Lynx Tech Blog</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 06 Sep 2026 05:40:00 +0800</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://blog.lynxflow.co/en/tags/%E5%9D%87%E5%80%BC%E5%9B%9E%E5%BD%92/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>LynxCrypto Kicks Off (Part 2): I Turned the Strategy Into Code, Then Falsified It Myself</title><link>https://blog.lynxflow.co/en/posts/lynxcrypto-part2-falsify/</link><pubDate>Sun, 06 Sep 2026 05:40:00 +0800</pubDate><guid>https://blog.lynxflow.co/en/posts/lynxcrypto-part2-falsify/</guid><description>&lt;img src="https://blog.lynxflow.co/images/lynxcrypto-part2-falsify-v2.png" alt="Featured image of post LynxCrypto Kicks Off (Part 2): I Turned the Strategy Into Code, Then Falsified It Myself" /&gt; Let me lead with the conclusion — the most valuable sentence in this entire post: using 180 days of real ZEC data, I proved that the &amp;ldquo;15-minute naive mean reversion&amp;rdquo; strategy I originally envisioned has a gross edge of roughly zero — not because risk management doesn&amp;rsquo;t work, but because fees and slippage take that tiny mean-reversion tendency and crush it straight into negative expectancy. This conclusion will save me more money than any &amp;ldquo;backtest moonshot&amp;rdquo; ever co</description></item></channel></rss>