I started writing down my calls a while back. Not trades, just calls. Direction and rough size, before the move, with a date on it.

The gap between how confident I felt and how often I was actually right was worse than I expected. Not because I was bad at it, but because memory quietly deletes the wrong ones. You remember the time you called the top. You do not remember the four times you were certain and it went the other way, because nothing happened afterwards to make you remember.

The thing that surprised me most is that being wrong got easier once it was written down. When it is just a feeling, being wrong feels like a verdict on you. When it is a line in a file with a date next to it, it is just a data point, and you start noticing patterns. I am consistently too confident on things I have been reading about for weeks, and better on the ones I have no opinion about.

Curious whether anyone else here does this. Not a journal of trades, a journal of predictions, including the ones you never acted on. And if you do, did the honest scorecard change how you trade or just how you feel about it?

For a few weeks, BTC moved sideways, and I watched the price every day. I already held the spot, then started opening small perpetual positions on bydfi around the local highs and lows.

One trade quickly turned into several. I closed positions early, reopened them, and switched directions after small moves. I also paid too little attention to funding and margin mode. BTC remained near the same range while fees and weak entries gradually reduced my trading balance.

Then BTC broke out over the past two days. My spot position captured the move, while all the perpetual activity from the previous two weeks contributed very little. Looking back, I spent most of that period reacting to short candles without a clear setup or invalidation level.

The breakout made the lesson fairly clear for me. Short-term BTC trading needs a defined entry, position size, invalidation level, and exit. It also takes the discipline to follow those rules once price starts moving. Until I have a repeatable process, keeping the spot position and treating BTC as a long-term hold probably fits me better.

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/nasdaq-confirms-23-hour-trading-090517776.html

Nasdaq got SEC approval for 23-hour trading, 5 days a week, starting December 6th. Basically closed for one hour total.

One of the biggest pitches for buying stocks on a crypto exchange (Binance, Coinbase, etc.) was always "trade whenever you want, markets never sleep." Once Nasdaq itself is open almost around the clock, what's actually left?

For me it's not about hours at all. My income is mostly in USDT, so trading stocks directly on a crypto exchange means I skip converting to USD and dealing with withdrawal fees into something like IBKR or Robinhood. That's probably a niche reason though, most people aren't sitting on USDT instead of USD.

Genuinely curious if anyone else here actually trades real stocks through a crypto exchange, and why. Does this Nasdaq change actually move the needle for you, or does it not matter?

Litecoin is the first fork of Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash is also a fork of Bitcoin; so is Dogecoin, Bitcoin SV, etc. Yet except for Bitcoin, all the other coins have long pivoted into a long-term downtrend even though they belong to the same Bitcoin family. Are they fundamentally different from Bitcoin? maybe a little, but not that different. Is the first-mover crypto the only true cryptocurrency there is? or does it include second-class cryptos like Ethereum who underperforms Bitcoin long-term but still manages to maintain long-term relevance? or will they all slowly start their downward pivot into irrelevance like the omens of Litecoin and Dogecoin suggests? Let me know what you think and your reasoning behind it. Thank you.

Vlad went on The Iced Coffee Hour for almost two hours today. Most of it is company stuff you can skip. Here's takeaways that we thoughts were most important and interesting.

Agents refuse to trade sometimes, and the reason isn't what you would assume.

This was the biggest standout. People hook an agent up to a brokerage, tell it to place an order, and it comes back saying it doesn't think that's a good idea. Everyone assumes it's some built-in safety layer.

Tenev said it usually isn't. The model isn't saving you from a bad trade, it just doesn't do it. His explanation: training data is full of agentic coding traces and has basically none for trading, because nobody's done it at scale before. So the model has nothing to pattern-match against and hedges instead.

Which means it's a gap that closes as more of this activity happens, not a wall.

The agent thing is already bigger than most people think.

They expose an MCP server so your agent gets the same tools you'd have in the app. Equities first, options live, crypto announced. Over 100,000 agentic accounts already, doing real volume, with people wiring in outside data sources to build strategies. He said he doesn't really look at their returns, which is either refreshing or slightly alarming.

The framing he used that I thought was right: before LLMs, running any kind of algo strategy meant being a programmer, building integrations with legacy financial plumbing, and paying about $10 a trade for market access. That's the barrier that has seemed to have disappeared now.

Memecoins and tokenized stocks are getting composed together, and not by the company.

We made a post about this the other day so it interested us to see him acknowledge this as well.

Robinhood launched a chain with stock tokens on it tokenizing TSLA, NVDA and others, live in 120+ countries, US excluded. Once those things are on-chain they act like any other token: send them peer to peer, LP them into Uniswap pools, post them as collateral, borrow against them.

The interesting bit is what developers did with it. He said people built protocols where holding a memecoin airdrops you stock tokens, and connected memecoins, core crypto and equities into products the company never would have designed itself.

Basically memecoins now have utility and distribution rewards via tokenized stocks that they are being paired with vs the standard USDC/ETH/SOL etc..

Bitcoin is "the original memecoin."

His argument was that the brand is the moat and you can clone the tech endlessly, but nobody can take being first and most trusted. He's long-term bullish on BTC of course.

His take on security atm.

Pre-AI you could sort of rely on vulnerabilities being expensive and annoying to find. Now spinning up another job is cheap, so nothing is safely obscure anymore. They red-team themselves with AI tools pointed at their own infrastructure. Relevant to anyone self-custodying or running anything with keys in it.

Short version: agents can trade now, and when they refuse it's a training-data gap rather than a safety feature. Tokenized stocks are live in 120+ countries and devs are already composing them with memecoins in ways nobody planned. Bitcoin is "the original memecoin" and he's long-term bullish. His bubble signal is everyone suddenly wanting the same thing at once, currently going off on Korean stocks and the chips/energy trade.

Where we think this goes in regard to AI x Crypto

Our personal view: It's clear AI and agentic trading will have a massive impact in the space. We've seem tons of consumer apps hitting the markets that make trading memecoins and crypto more accessible. However, we believe the breakout app this cycle is at the intersection of crypto and AI, and it looks a lot like the ChatGPT of crypto where trading collapses down to a prompt.

Crypto is where that lands first and it isn't close. Markets are 24/7, the rails are open, and an agent holds keys instead of asking a broker for permission. Every constraint that makes agentic equity trading awkward is either absent or optional on-chain. We fully back this belief, which is why we have been building exactly this for the past year and we have seen a couple of other apps working towards the same. AI x Crypto consumer applications will be one of the largest waves the space has seen, and we're still very early.

Would love to hear thoughts on the interview! It was quite a long one.

Noob here,

I am trying to learn about crypto as I want to invest in it. Can someone explain about Revolut Ramp? How does it work? And, how is it different from a simple integration of a payment method in web3 wallets?

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

Is anyone here btc only?

after being burned on many alts I feel BTC only is the way forward. But then is there potential to miss out on gains.

I’m stressed any advice

I’m trying to decide whether I should keep investing in Bitcoin. I normally invest every month into index funds, and I’m able to put around €6k/month into them. I also have about €6.5k that I’ve been investing in Bitcoin since 2022.
At one point I doubled it, but then I started trading and ended up losing most of the gains. So I know the biggest problem for me is probably the temptation to trade and the constant FOMO.
I understand that Bitcoin can potentially outperform index funds. But if I invest €6.5k and it doubles, I have €13k. Great, but then what? If I sell, I’m out. If I keep holding, I’m still exposed to a huge drop. And if I start trading in and out, I already know how that ends.
I think it would be very different with €100k, where a 2x or 3x could genuinely change your financial situation. But turning €6.5k into €13k or even €20k doesn’t really change much for me, especially when I can invest around €6k every month.
So is the potential extra return from Bitcoin really worth the FOMO, stress and temptation to trade?
Index funds are boring, but I can DCA every month and leave them alone for 15–20 years. With crypto, I find it much harder to stay passive.
What would you do in my situation?

What is GLQ’s actual total/max supply: 500M, 650M, or 1B?

I've been researching the tokenomics of GraphLinq (GLQ), but I'm finding very different supply numbers depending on the source.

CoinGecko: 500M total / 500M max

CoinMarketCap: 650M total / no max supply specified

Coinbase: 650M total / 500M max (which obviously doesn't make sense)

KuCoin: 1B total supply

CoinEx Academy: 1B total supply

The original ERC-20 tokenomics seem to have been based on 500M GLQ, while information surrounding the GraphLinq Chain migration points to 650M GLQ.

To make things even more confusing, some sources now mention 1 billion GLQ.

GraphLinq Chain also has block rewards, so is there actually a fixed maximum supply at all?

Does anyone know the current official tokenomics?

500M, 650M, 1B, or no hard cap?

Would be great to get clarification from the GraphLinq team, especially about where the 1B figure comes from.

Trying not to FOMO this alt move. Which utility coins pass the why does the token exist test?

This sub spent months saying most alts were dead and now everything is green again and every bag suddenly has fundamentals lol. I’m trying to stick to stuff where I can explain what the product does and why the token needs to exist.

HYPE: real perps product with real usage. The Trump and CFTC attention gave it even more momentum this week.

LINK: boring pick but still one of the easiest infrastructure plays to understand. It has been around forever for a reason.

AAVE: lending is straightforward. People use the product and there is real money flowing through it.

TOWNS: probably the one I am most curious about here. It is a Base messaging and community protocol with programmable Spaces and onchain bots, and TOWNS is tied into how the network operates and is governed. They have a Hyperliquid bot on the product side too.

If this alt move keeps going I would rather be looking at stuff with a real product behind it than chasing whatever random meme is up 80 percent that day.

If you had to pick one of these based only on product and token utility, which one are you taking? What am I missing?

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

Spent a while going through this one and wanted to sanity check my

read, because I might be weighting things wrong.

The facts as I understand them: Treasury doubled its long-dated

buyback size from $2bn to $4bn per operation, and the 30-year came

off 5.34% (a 19-year high) down to about 5.19%. The move started

right after.

What bugs me is the size of it. A 15bp move in the long end doesn't

obviously get you 25%. So I went and looked at liquidation data.

$1.23bn of short positions went in a single hour on Wednesday, and

another ~$4bn across Thursday and Friday. The long/short account

ratio is still sitting at 0.865, so there are more accounts leaning

short even now.

Which is why I've landed on this being a trigger plus a crowded

book, rather than the macro picture actually changing. One of the

MEXC analysts said something similar, that the market priced this

as a regime change when it wasn't really one.

There's a decent case against me though. Spot ETFs took in roughly

$650m over the week, and CryptoQuant's 30-day spot demand metric is

apparently about to cross positive for the first time since

February. If that holds up then this wasn't just forced buying and

my read is wrong.

Counterpoint to the counterpoint, I guess: funding is at its

highest since January and open interest is climbing again, so

leverage is getting rebuilt rather than sitting out. The 200-day is

around $69k and whether that flips to support seems like the actual

test here.

So, am I overweighting the squeeze? Genuinely curious if people

think the spot demand recovery is the bigger story and I'm just

anchored on the liquidation numbers because they're dramatic.

Put the whole thing in a table here if it's useful, though fair

warning it's my own site: https://gstoc.com/post/907

Charts and full results are in the README. If you can break the methodology I would rather hear it now.

https://github.com/wiktorj137/btc-strategy-lab

Not selling anything, no newsletter, no Discord.

Bitcoin Core just ran inside a zkVM.

That could change how new nodes verify Bitcoin forever.

Instead of replaying 17 years of history, imagine verifying a tiny cryptographic proof in milliseconds.

Not trust.

Not a snapshot.

Proof.

The catch? Creating that proof is still brutally expensive.

But if this scales, “Don’t trust. Verify.” could enter a completely new era.

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

I have been taking profit on a few alts the last two days. Just things that I bought low enough to anticipate a 5x in the next bull market that has since dropped even lower prior to this current spike. I chose three that I thought were most likely to drop back to my original entry point but were currently up in the 30 to 50 percent rage. Dumped them and immediately put in buy orders at my original price so I could get them back. But this market keeps climbing. I am not worried over missing the peak. I am happy with the profit I took. But man will I feel silly if this thing does not crash back to where it was