Bluntz Review: Bybit Copy Trading Without the Fireworks

Sort Bybit's copy-trading board by return and you will scroll past bluntz without noticing him. That is rather the point of him.

The returns that top the board are the fireworks kind - three, five, eight hundred percent, usually on young accounts, usually briefly. bluntz's card shows none of that. What it shows instead is the thing the sort button cannot surface: the people copying him have collectively earned more than the followers of anyone else on the board. If that is the outcome you are shopping for, this is what it looks like - and his page on the exchange looks almost boring next to the accounts ranked above it.

We keep our own rating of Bybit's leaders, re-read regularly and scored against everything we have ever recorded, and bluntz sits high in it. This review is the long version of why - and of the two honest caveats that belong next to the praise.

The shape of the account

On our reading of 2 September 2026, the card said: $6.3 million of assets under management, 622 followers against a 3,000-follower cap, a published 90-day return of 118%, and a total follower profit of $316,863 - the largest on the whole board that day. The account was 1,320 days old - more than three times the median age among the leaders we can date - while the board's default sort keeps promoting whatever is two months old and hot.

The trading itself reads as a volume operation rather than a hero act. A 73.5% win rate across 177 closed positions, with a profit-to-loss ratio of 0.92 - his average win is slightly smaller than his average loss, and he profits because the wins are many rather than large. Note the 37 closed losses on the card: as we showed when we took apart the leader card itself, a record with real, closed losses is more trustworthy than the twenty-wins-zero-losses theatre some accounts present, where every losing position simply stays open. The platform's own risk tags call him high-frequency; the Sharpe it publishes, 2.12, is solid without being showy.

The profit share is 12.5%, toward the lower end of a rating top ten that runs from 10% to 30%.

Five days that made the argument for us

Between our readings of 28 August and 2 September, bluntz's published return fell from 218% to 118%. Halved, in five days, on an account that did nothing wrong - a profitable stretch simply aged out of the trailing 90-day window and took half the headline with it. Over the same five days his followers earned another $52,946, and about twenty of them left anyway.

Sit with that pair of numbers for a moment, because it is the whole thesis of this site's Bybit coverage in one account: the number on the card halved while the wallets grew. Anyone screening by the headline that week would have concluded bluntz was cooling off. The ledger says the opposite. The card describes a window; the ledger describes the account.

An audience is not a verdict

It is tempting to treat 622 followers as social proof. The board itself argues against it.

On the same reading, Anjuta carried 536 followers - nearly bluntz's audience - who were collectively down $234,819. 2Moon's 234 followers were down $318,630, the worst follower ledger on the board. And JP777, the #1 account in our rating, had earned his followers $273,390 with an audience of just 100. Follower counts measure marketing. The ledger measures trading. They are different skills, and only one of them pays you.

The account wearing his name

Google "bluntz bybit", or search the name on the board directly, and two results come back. The second is called "bluntz algo", and nothing in the platform's own data connects it to the first: it runs under a different user id, it has four followers, and on our reading its card showed a return of minus 20.6% with a 59.9% drawdown - three times the drawdown of the account whose name it echoes.

We saw the same pattern on the forex side, where a second account traded under a famous CopyFX name and turned out to belong to someone else entirely. Whether "bluntz algo" is an unrelated trader with an unlucky naming instinct or something more deliberate, the practical advice is identical: follow the exact account, not the name. The one this review covers is the one our rating row links to.

What copying him actually risks

The praise needs its counterweight. Bybit showed a maximum drawdown of 23.8% on our latest reading, and our own record has seen the same field at 26.6% - so a quarter of the account under water is not a hypothetical, it is the observed cost of holding through his bad stretch. High-frequency systems also carry a quiet dependence on market regime: many small wins with slightly larger losses is a shape that works until conditions change, and no card - his included - will announce that change in advance.

So the position-sizing arithmetic matters more here than the picking. However good the ledger looks, the share of your capital that belongs in any single strategy is a number you decide before opening the board, and a 26% observed drawdown is the stress test to size against.

Where that leaves him

High in our rating but deliberately not first - the score prices his drawdown honestly and rewards the age and the ledger. If you want the loudest possible number, the board is full of them. If you want the account whose followers have actually been paid the most, on the longest record among the top rows, at one of the lower profit shares on the table - that is bluntz, and there is exactly one of him.

The readings quoted above are from our records of 28 August and 2 September 2026; the mechanisms they illustrate - the trailing window, the ledger-versus-headline gap - are how the board works on any date. Copy trading carries real risk, and nothing above predicts future performance.