Why I Document My Trading Results in Public

There is a question everyone asks on first seeing this site, and it is justified: why would anyone do this to himself? Letting a machine trade is one thing. Publishing every one of its metrics, week after week, with an open outcome and no name underneath — that is another. This letter gives the answer, as completely as anonymity allows.

The trigger: a world full of shop windows

Whoever looks around the markets finds no desert of information but the opposite: a fairground. A thousand voices show profits. Screenshots at the right second, returns without a period, hit rates without the loss side — the vanity metrics on endless loop. And it is important to understand: very few of these voices lie in the legal sense. They select. They show the green day and stay silent about the red one, they show the good year and not the account that was abandoned before it.

Against a fairground of selection, another shop window does not help. Only the opposite helps: a record that cannot select. That is exactly what a public documentation with an open outcome is — you tie your own hands before knowing whether you will want to use them.

The mechanism: publicity as a fetter

The core of this site is a simple time mechanism, and it deserves to be written out once: what is published before the result is known cannot be polished afterwards.

The machine’s trial began with fixed criteria — threshold, duration, minimum number of trades, maximum daily loss depth. Since then the numbers have appeared continuously: the profit factor, the drawdown, the red and green days. Each of these publications is a nail sealing off a possible later excuse. If the end is failure, it can no longer be narrated away — the trail is there, dated, complete.

That is the difference between a chronicle and a success story, which the fifth letter played through at the level of a single day, lifted here to the whole project: a success story is told backwards, from the good ending. A chronicle is written forwards, into the unknown. Only the second form proves anything — and it proves it precisely by being able to fail.

The anonymity: why no name stands beneath

Now to the second half of the question, the seemingly paradoxical one: whoever wants transparency, why does he hide his face?

The answer has two layers. The sober one: a name proves nothing. The numbers do not become truer when a face smiles next to them — faces, CVs and success photos are marketing instruments in the markets, and this site sells nothing, so it needs none. The operator is called the Chronicler here because that describes the entire function: one who records. His story is documented as far as it belongs to the matter — the losses, the consequence, the building of the machine. The rest does not belong to the matter.

The deeper layer: anonymity protects the documentation from its most dangerous enemy — the ego of the one documenting. As soon as a name hangs on a project, the quiet bookkeeping of vanity begins: every red week becomes a personal embarrassment, every publication an image question. The pressure to smooth grows with every follower. The old schools knew why many of their protocols have come down to us without an author’s name: the work was meant to speak, not the author. Whoever removes the name removes the motive for cosmetics.

What this documentation is not

The Codex demands the counter-list here too, and it is short and hard. This documentation is not a recommendation — that a machine trades does not mean anyone should trade. It is not a signal — the numbers appear after trading, not before, and nothing can be derived from them that could justify an order. It is not a sales funnel — there is nothing to buy; the sealed Acta remain sealed until the trial has proven something, and perhaps even then.

And it is, final honesty, not proof in the strict sense: a website cannot ultimately establish its own truthfulness, and healthy scepticism towards every trading documentation — including this one — is not an insult but appropriate. What this site can do is set the indications right: criteria before the start, ratios instead of amounts, red days in the same typeface as green ones, no product in the basket. Advertising looks different. That is not proof. But it is a trail, and trails can be examined.

So why all this? Because the Chronicler was sick of a world in which profits are shown and losses deleted — and because there is exactly one way to do it differently: write forwards, show everything, be able to fail. The rest is patience.