88% of Funds & Strategies Collapse Under Real Constraints
Most strategies are never proven wrong — they’re simply allowed to avoid being proven at all.
They are described.
They are narrated.
They are backtested in friendly environments.
But they are not forced to survive.
Why most methods never face real selection pressure
Here’s the uncomfortable truth:
Most strategies are designed to avoid true selection pressure, not survive it.
They do this by:
stretching time horizons
diffusing accountability
appealing to patience
reframing failure as “part of the process”
deferring falsification indefinitely
This allows them to:
persist socially
scale marketing
collect capital
enjoy apparent abundance
But it’s abundance without proof of survivability.
That’s not robustness — it’s unexamined continuity.
When you introduce real constraints—finite drawdown tolerance, time pressure, capital continuity, and repeated exposure—the picture changes fast.
Under those conditions, 88% of strategies fail.
Not eventually.
Not after years.
But early.
In fact, 2/3rds of funds underperform year one.
In our analysis, we applied the same class of scrutiny across a wide spectrum of approaches:
Technical strategies
Quantitative models
Fundamental theses
Discretionary frameworks
Time-based and event-based methods
We did not force them into the same timeframe.
That would be unfair.
Instead, we adjusted constraints proportionally to each method’s natural horizon:
Short-term methods received tight drawdown and consistency limits
Medium-term methods received wider but still finite tolerance
Long-term methods received proportional survivability thresholds
What did not change was the requirement to:
Survive without catastrophic drawdown
Remain deployable after losses
Continue operating without narrative rescue
Produce usable outcomes under consequence
This is where most methods fail.
The Result: 88% Do Not Survive
Across permutations, approximately 88% of strategies collapsed under these conditions.
They failed because:
A single adverse sequence broke the method
Variance exceeded allowable tolerance
Capital continuity was lost
The strategy relied on time, not control
Recovery depended on explanation, not structure
These were not “bad” strategies.
They were fragile strategies.
They worked—until they were forced to keep working.