Annual Report: Accuracy Assessment of the BitcoinPeakDip Signal System

Report Date: March 23, 2026
Analysis Scope: 108 PEAK signals and 32 DIP signals (September 2022 – March 2026)
Signal Validity Period: 7 trading days

Summary of Key Results

Key Conclusion: Both signal types demonstrate reliability above 70%, with PEAK signals performing approximately 6% better than DIP signals. This accuracy level is high compared to industry standards for signal platforms, especially given independent verification across the complete historical signal dataset.

1. Introduction and Methodology

1.1. Analysis Objective

To evaluate the accuracy of PEAK (local top) and DIP (local bottom) signals within a 7-day window after signal generation, using historical Bitcoin price data from Binance and cross-referencing with reputable on-chain data sources.

1.2. Signal Definitions

1.3. Data Sources

1.4. Signal Confirmation Methodology

2. PEAK Signal Analysis Results

2.1. Summary Statistics

2.2. Analysis by Market Phase

2.3. Risk Analysis of INCORRECT PEAK Signals

When PEAK signals are INCORRECT (price increases after the signal instead of decreasing), the magnitude of adverse movement is measured as follows:

Distribution of INCORRECT PEAK Increases:

Conclusion on INCORRECT PEAK Risk:

• 79.2% of incorrect cases have increases below 2% → Low risk
• Only 8.3% of cases have increases above 3% → High risk but rare
• Average risk when PEAK is INCORRECT: Approximately +1.78% price movement

2.4. Highest INCORRECT PEAK Signals

3. DIP Signal Analysis Results

3.1. Summary Statistics

3.2. Analysis by Market Phase

3.3. Risk Analysis of INCORRECT DIP Signals

When DIP signals are INCORRECT (price declines after the signal instead of increasing), the magnitude of adverse movement is measured as follows:

Distribution of INCORRECT DIP Declines:

Conclusion on INCORRECT DIP Risk:

• 66.6% of incorrect cases have declines below 2% → Low risk
• Only 11.1% of cases have declines above 3% → High risk but rare
• Average risk when DIP is INCORRECT: Approximately -2.07% price movement

3.4. Deepest INCORRECT DIP Signals

4. Comprehensive Risk Analysis

4.1. Comparison of PEAK INCORRECT vs DIP INCORRECT Risk

4.2. Risk Distribution of All INCORRECT Signals

4.3. Risk Level Conclusions

Risk Management Recommendations:

• Recommended stop-loss: 2-3% for both signal types
• Apply SNR > 0.5 filter to reduce risk by 35-40%

5. Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) Analysis

5.1. Definition and Formula

SNR = |Signal price - 7-day average price| / 7-day standard deviation

5.2. SNR Results by Signal Type

5.3. Correlation Between SNR and Purity

Conclusion: Signals with higher SNR achieve greater accuracy and lower risk. Prioritize trading signals with SNR > 0.5.

6. Advanced Filters to Reduce Risk

6.1. Filters for PEAK Signals

6.2. Filters for DIP Signals

7. Cross-Reference with Authoritative Sources

7.1. Glassnode - MVRV Z-Score

7.2. CryptoQuant - Exchange Netflow & Funding Rate

7.3. Santiment - 30-Day MVRV

7.4. CoinDesk - Technical Analysis

8. Conclusion

8.1. Main Conclusions

8.2. Strategy Recommendations

8.3. Risk Management Recommendations

9.0 📊 Accuracy Assessment of On-Chain Data Platforms

In reality, no platform dares to commit to an absolute accuracy percentage (such as 90% or 100%), because on-chain and quantitative data reflect past and present behavior, not future “prophecy.”

However, based on historical performance and the trust of the expert community, the accuracy in identifying local peak/dip zones can be estimated as follows:

10.0 📋 Summary Table of Reliability

11. References

Report Prepared By: BitcoinPeakDip Signal Analysis System
Completion Date: March 23, 2026
Data Updated: Through March 19, 2026

Note: This report is for reference purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Historical performance does not guarantee future results. Investors should conduct their own research and assessment before making investment decisions.