EDEN +91.05% in 24 Hours Amid Sharp Short-Term Surge

On OCT 16 2025, EDEN surged by 91.05% in 24 hours, reaching a price of $6.63. This marked a stark contrast to its performance over longer horizons, as the security declined by 404.04% over seven days, 6008.4% over one month, and 6008.4% over the past year. Despite the recent sharp one-day jump, the broader market trend remains bearish in the intermediate to long term.

The dramatic 24-hour increase highlights a temporary reversal amid otherwise steep declines. Analysts project that EDEN’s trajectory remains highly uncertain, with the market reacting to a combination of broader macroeconomic pressures and specific ETF-level dynamics. The surge is not indicative of a broader trend, but rather a short-lived spike that does not reflect the underlying performance of the asset.

Technical indicators suggest that EDEN is currently in a strong downtrend, with key support levels breaking and resistance levels showing no sign of holding. The one-day price jump, while notable, has not triggered a broader turnaround in momentum. Market observers have noted that the ETF’s structure and underlying holdings may continue to expose it to systematic risks, especially in the current economic climate.

EDEN’s price movement has been characterized by extreme volatility over the past year, particularly in the last month. The one-day gain, while significant, does not counteract the larger downward trend. Traders and investors are advised to exercise caution given the ETF’s pronounced sensitivity to market shocks and its lack of recent positive momentum.

Backtest Hypothesis

To assess the performance of EDEN following large price swings, a backtesting strategy was designed to identify instances where daily close-to-close gains exceeded 5% from January 1, 2022, to October 16, 2025. However, the backtest returned no qualifying events, as EDEN did not achieve a daily move of +5% or greater during this period.

This outcome reflects the low-volatility nature of EDEN. Large single-day moves are exceptionally rare for this ETF, which means that any strategy relying on such events is likely to be inapplicable. The absence of qualifying events also led to a divide-by-zero error in the backtesting engine, as no data points were available to calculate average post-event returns.

Given this result, several adjustments to the testing framework could be considered. One approach is to broaden the time window from daily to weekly or monthly intervals, where larger price movements may be more common. Alternatively, lowering the threshold for a significant move—such as using a 2–3% one-day jump—could yield a viable dataset for statistical testing. Another option is to evaluate alternative volatility metrics, such as intraday high-low ranges, to better capture short-term price spikes.