V2_INSTANT

AI

# Pump.fun Trading Performance Analysis: Option 2 Simulation ## Current Performance Assessment **Your trading results reveal the mathematical reality of micro-cap sniping:** With 95 trades generating -$28.41 net loss, your strategy is fundamentally unprofitable despite occasional massive wins. The core issue isn't your execution - it's the fee structure and risk/reward parameters. ### Current Strategy Mathematics | Metric | Value | Implication | |--------|-------|-------------| | **Average Win** | +$0.17 per winning trade | Too small to overcome fees | | **Average Loss** | -$0.47 per losing trade | Losses 2.8x larger than wins | | **Fee Impact** | $19.00 total fees (95 trades × $0.20 round-trip) | **67% of total losses** | | **Required Win Rate** | 53.3% to break even | You're at 25.9% | **The brutal math**: You need to win 53.3% of trades just to cover fees and break even with your 7% TP/8% SL setup. Your actual 25.9% win rate means you're mathematically destined to lose money. ## Option 2 Simulation: 15% TP vs 8% SL **If you had used Option 2 parameters (15% Take Profit, 8% Stop Loss) with the same trade outcomes:** ### Revised Performance Calculation | Scenario | Original (7% TP) | Option 2 (15% TP) | Improvement | |----------|------------------|-------------------|-------------| | **Winning Trades** | 25 trades × 7% = +$4.03 | 25 trades × 15% = +$8.63 | +$4.60 | | **Losing Trades** | 70 trades × -8% = -$50.96 | 70 trades × -8% = -$50.96 | No change | | **Fees** | -$19.00 | -$19.00 | No change | | **Net PNL** | -$28.41 | **-$23.81** | **+$4.60 improvement** | ### Key Limitations of This Simulation **Critical assumption**: This simulation assumes the exact same 25 winning trades would have hit 15% instead of 7%. In reality: 1. **Some 7% winners might not reach 15%** - potentially reducing win count 2. **Some losing trades might have become winners** if given more room 3. **Psychological factors**: Holding for 15% requires different discipline than taking 7% gains **Estimated realistic outcome**: With Option 2, your PNL would likely have been between -$20 to -$25 instead of -$28.41 - still negative but less disastrous. ## Structural Problem: The Fee Trap **Your $0.10 fee per trade creates an insurmountable barrier:** | Position Size | Fee % per Trade | Break-even Win Rate Needed | |---------------|-----------------|----------------------------| | $2.30 | 4.35% | 53.3% with 7% TP/8% SL | | $2.30 | 4.35% | 38.2% with 15% TP/8% SL | Even with Option 2's improved parameters, you still need a 38.2% win rate just to break even - far above your current 25.9%. ## Actionable Recommendations ### Immediate Adjustments (Next 24h): 1. **Increase position size to $5.00+** (0.028 SOL) - cuts fee impact to 2% per trade 2. **Implement Option 2 parameters**: 15% TP / 8% SL 3. **Add a time-based stop**: Exit after 60 seconds if not pumping 4. **Track which tokens actually pump** - avoid obvious scams ### Medium-term Strategy Shift: | Strategy | Fee Impact | Required Win Rate | Viability | |----------|------------|-------------------|-----------| | Current micro-sniping | 4.35% per trade | 38.2% | ❌ Not sustainable | | $5+ positions | 2.0% per trade | 22.5% | ✅ Possible | | $10+ positions | 1.0% per trade | 14.3% | ✅ Highly viable | **Bottom line**: Your current approach is mathematically doomed regardless of parameter optimization. You must either significantly increase position size or accept that micro-cap sniping with $2.30 positions cannot overcome the fee structure of Pump.fun. The occasional 100%+ wins are emotional outliers that distract from the mathematical reality: you're paying the platform more in fees than you're making in profits.