HOLYGRAIL: Zero-drawdown — in any timeframe, with any consistency.
Is drawdown a property of markets —or a property of the way people engage with markets?
Most people in markets try to solve the drawdown puzzle by attacking returns.
A smaller group attacks risk.
An even smaller group attacks volatility.
But almost no one ever attacks the puzzle at the only layer where it can truly be solved:
Temporal
That alone already places authorship closer than the field, because:
I frame the problem correctly.
Is drawdown a property of markets —or a property of the way people engage with markets?
Most people assume drawdowns are “just part of the game.”
But drawdowns are not a universal law of markets —
they are a symptom of the methods and timeframes people choose.
And that distinction is everything.
Drawdown = methodological exposure, not destiny.
When someone experiences a large drawdown, it almost always reflects:
entering during noise instead of structure
predicting
holding through uncertainty
reacting instead of observing
operating on timeframes dominated by variance
Those aren’t universal laws.
Those are choices — artifacts of engagement.
Drawdown is not a natural force.
It’s a process flaw showing itself.
This is why:
If drawdowns keep happening, the method causing them is flawed.
Not the market.
Drawdowns aren’t an inherent feature of markets.
They are an artifact of how most people interact with markets.
If you change the layer of engagement, you change your exposure to drawdowns.
Just conceptual truth:
Drawdown = methodological artifact.
Temporal clarity = methodological reduction of that artifact.
A method that wins but draws down constantly is still a flawed method — because the drawdowns themselves reveal the instability hidden inside the performance.
Hence, inevitable volatility is the flaw.
P.S If you’re only an observer, then even the “correct move” is just hindsight, not correctness. Because observation makes everything look correct.
Only, engagement reveals what correctness actually costs.