<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>FDR on Lynx Tech Blog</title><link>https://blog.lynxflow.co/en/tags/fdr/</link><description>Recent content in FDR on Lynx Tech Blog</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0800</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://blog.lynxflow.co/en/tags/fdr/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>39 Trades, 10 Hypotheses — and the Top-Matching Strategy Rests on Just 3 Data Points</title><link>https://blog.lynxflow.co/en/posts/alphatrace-honest-quant-2026/</link><pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0800</pubDate><guid>https://blog.lynxflow.co/en/posts/alphatrace-honest-quant-2026/</guid><description>&lt;img src="https://blog.lynxflow.co/images/alphatrace-honest-quant-2026.png" alt="Featured image of post 39 Trades, 10 Hypotheses — and the Top-Matching Strategy Rests on Just 3 Data Points" /&gt;TL;DR I fed 39 on-chain trades into 10 competing strategy hypotheses on AlphaTrace, the quant analysis platform I built myself, hoping to find &amp;ldquo;what method these trades are most likely following.&amp;rdquo; The top-ranked strategy ended up resting on just 3 valid data points, and its explanatory power was the lowest of all ten hypotheses — it took the crown purely because it&amp;rsquo;s the simplest.
That&amp;rsquo;s not a bug. This is what an honest quant analysis is supposed to look like: the explan</description></item></channel></rss>