Cash in the wallet, no room in the portfolio
The wallet had $36.82 in cash, but the bot could not afford its strongest signal today—not because the money was missing, but because the portfolio’s remaining risk budget was too small.
At 19:00 UTC, YES on Ethereum reaching $2,800 during September 21–27 offered a modeled edge of 7.5 cents per share at a 25-cent ask. The stored decision was cap:total=1.50. Open purchase cost was already $13.50 against a $15 ceiling, leaving $1.50, below the configured $2 minimum trade budget.
Bitcoin had a similar constraint: $9.20 committed against a $10 asset cap. Signals above the four-cent entry threshold at 15:00, 16:00 and 18:00 were blocked with just 80 cents of asset headroom. These are documented skips, not execution failures. Nor is a model edge proof of a missed profit.
The purchase that did fit
At 17:00 UTC, the bot bought 5 YES at $0.39, paying $1.95 before additional fees, on Ethereum dipping to $2,600 during September 21–27. The model’s fair range was approximately 46.4–52.6%, with a fee- and haircut-adjusted edge of 4.7 cents and 83 hours remaining.
The journal and ledger agree on the actual five shares and $1.95 consideration. This was the only recorded purchase today through 20:00; there were no sales. The $1.95 execution is slightly below the nominal $2 sizing target because the exact-amount order builder rounds down; the sizing target is not a guaranteed final spend.
Three hours later, the displayed mark was 29.5 cents and the position showed a $0.475 unrealized loss. The model still valued YES at 39.88–46.22%. A favorable model estimate does not stop the market moving against a new purchase.
Five tickets at 20:00 UTC
| Contract / side | Shares | Entry average | Model fair | Bid | Mark value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BTC reaches $88k, Sep 21–27 / YES | 13 | 0.1899 | 0.2045–0.2945 | 0.100 | $1.4300 |
| BTC dips to $82k, Sep 21–27 / YES | 7 | 0.3399 | 0.3939–0.4839 | 0.260 | $1.8550 |
| BTC reaches $90k, September / NO | 5 | 0.8700 | 0.7567–0.8433 | 0.848 | $4.2575 |
| ETH dips to $2,600, Sep 21–27 / YES | 5 | 0.3900 | 0.3988–0.4622 | 0.300 | $1.4750 |
| ETH dips to $2,300, September / YES | 5 | 0.4700 | 0.0075–0.0190 | 0.030 | $0.1650 |
Cash is 36.8233 USDC. Positions have a combined displayed value of $9.1825, making cash plus marks $46.0058. At the quoted bids the total is $45.8333 before exit fees. Against $13.50 of open purchase cost, the displayed unrealized loss is approximately $4.32, excluding additional fees.
All five positions remain hold. The three weekly contracts have 80 hours left; the two September contracts have 152. The BTC $90k NO ticket is close to its entry price, while the old ETH $2,300 YES accounts for roughly half the unrealized loss. Holding tickets tied to both upward and downward touches is not a risk-free hedge: the path, timing and prices paid matter.
A quiet endpoint hides changing inputs
The following comparisons use 00:00 to 20:00 UTC on September 24, not a rolling 24-hour return:
- BTCUSDT: spot $84,397.60 → $84,374.01; seven-day annualized realized volatility 39.50% → 42.00%.
- ETHUSDT: spot $2,684.67 → $2,696.30; seven-day annualized realized volatility 42.82% → 45.10%.
- SOLUSDT: spot $115.00 → $117.25; seven-day annualized realized volatility 58.22% → 60.81%.
Bitcoin ended almost unchanged across those snapshots, but its realized-volatility estimate increased. ETH and SOL finished higher, also with higher seven-day volatility. These are the bot’s stored inputs, not an independently established explanation for market moves.
Reliability and the next decision
All 21 hourly reports from 00:00 through 20:00 are present. There are no new recorded errors and no PENDING or UNCERTAIN orders. The status counter still contains two historical failures, from September 19 and September 23; neither is a new outage today.
No parameters changed during this review. The next scheduled check is September 24 at 21:00 UTC. The useful research question is now allocation: whether capital tied up in old low-value tickets is worth more than fresh signals after spreads and fees. Simply raising a cap because a blocked signal looks attractive would not answer it. Today’s evidence establishes the constraint, not the profitability of removing it.