cryptocurrency trading teams

Abstract: Cryptocurrency swing trading spans mismatched timescales: positions remain active while market and event risk can change within minutes. However, many predictive and large language model (LLM)-based trading systems assess risk after strategy generation or run both functions at the same cadence, leaving proposals unconditioned by current risk and exposure weakly governed between revisions. We propose SwingGuard, a dual-timescale, long-only multi-agent framework for risk-conditioned strategy generation. At the strategy timescale, specialized analysts synthesize point-in-time technical, sentiment, on-chain, and macroeconomic evidence through bullish-bearish deliberation. The resulting evidence and current risk context are then combined by a Portfolio Architect to form a target position. At the governance timescale, a five-minute Risk Controller performs conditional diagnosis, maintains persistent risk states with staged recovery, audits the proposal, and constrains execution until the next strategy revision. This design allows risk to shape the feasible strategy before proposal finalization while continuing to govern the active position afterward. Evaluations on Bitcoin (BTC) and Ether (ETH) show that SwingGuard preserves positive returns after transaction costs while maintaining shallow drawdowns and strong risk-adjusted performance on both assets. The exposure-capped joint portfolio achieves a Sharpe ratio of 2.98, compared with 2.79 for an otherwise identical Post-hoc Risk variant. Structured traces further link risk evidence and state transitions to strategy constraints and executed position changes, providing an auditable framework for asynchronous cryptocurrency swing trading. Overall, the results indicate that conditioning strategy formation on current risk, together with persistent high-frequency governance, improves risk-adjusted performance without sacrificing auditability.

Abstract: Deep reinforcement-learning policies for order execution can vary substantially across training seeds, so apparent architectural gains may reflect favourable training realisations rather than reproducible properties of the architecture. We evaluate vanilla Double Deep Q-Learning (DDQL), K-means-partitioned mixtures of DDQL experts at $K \in \{2, 4, 8\}$, and dense networks parameter-matched to the $K{=}4$ and $K{=}8$ expert budgets on 5-minute mean-aggregated BTC/USDT limit order book data from Binance. No learned configuration significantly improves mean implementation shortfall over DDQL. Under the reported specification, all have higher mean shortfall than TWAP (0.39 bps) and immediate liquidation (0.21 bps) in an environment whose frictionless replay and terminal-urgency penalty make early liquidation nearly costless; 11/100 vanilla-DDQL runs, versus none in either MoE $K{\geq}4$ arm, converge to a policy that waits until forced liquidation. We then decompose this specification on a device-matched baseline. Annealed exploration alone eliminates observed collapses (12/100 to 0/100; exact McNemar $p{=}4.9{\times}10^{-4}$), matching the elimination under expert partitioning. Combining annealed exploration with the aligned reward restores collapse in 19/30 runs; with all three specification changes, it rises to 48/100. In this environment, expert partitioning is unnecessary to suppress collapse and appears to mask a training-specification failure rather than confer an intrinsic performance benefit. No MoE $K{=}8$ run collapses under any of the six specifications tested. Across-seed dispersion is lowest at $K{=}8$ but non-monotone and not robust to family-wise adjustment, while within-policy tail risk worsens monotonically with $K$. The apparent attribution of the failure mode reverses between 30 and 100 seeds, illustrating the importance of repeated-seed evaluation.