baseflwer

the tree of life was a flwer once 🌷

@ChudCrentis 😂😂 more so your understanding of the quote

@baseflwer expand my bottom??

bottom

wow. would you advise building solutions over funding businesses that already have solutions like you mentioned in this particular case. (engineering student) if i had experience in building a solution for a business/ industry would you advise building it myself or find business with similar solutions and meditate a deal between both parties

I FUCKING HATE THE GAME: HOW I THINK ABOUT STRUCTURAL OPPORTUNITIES NOBODY ELSE SEES (PART 1) I'll probably turn this into some sort of series where I walk through specific opportunities and the math behind them Not because I'm trying to help you But because most people miss opportunities that are sitting right in front of them And maybe someone finds it interesting to see how I actually think about finding these THE CURRENT REGULATORY SITUATION THAT ENABLES THIS Let me be specific about what's actually happening right now in the EU Because most people haven't read the actual directives and don't understand the forcing mechanism The EU Industrial Emissions Directive was updated in 2023 with new compliance timelines Not suggested targets Legally binding emissions reduction requirements with severe financial penalties The key directives creating this: EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) - carbon price now €80-100 per ton, projected €150-200 by 2030 Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) - mandates Best Available Techniques (BAT) for all major facilities by 2030 Energy Efficiency Directive - requires 11.7% reduction in energy consumption by 2030 Climate Law - makes 55% emissions reduction by 2030 legally binding What this actually means in practice: Every industrial facility over certain emissions thresholds must submit compliance plans by 2025 Those plans must show how they'll meet reduction targets by 2030-2035 If they don't comply, they face penalties of €150-200 per ton CO2 by 2030 Plus they have to buy ETS allowances at market rates which are projected to hit €150-200 per ton So a cement plant emitting 1 million tons annually faces: €150-200M in annual penalties if non-compliant Plus €150-200M in ETS allowance costs even if compliant Total annual cost of €300-400M if they don't decarbonize No company can afford to pay that They're economically forced to spend capital to comply The regulatory timeline is compressed: 2025: Compliance plans must be submitted 2027: Implementation must begin with measurable progress 2030: First major compliance checkpoint with full penalty enforcement 2035: Final compliance deadline with maximum penalties Facilities have 5-7 years to deploy solutions That's not enough time for breakthrough technology to be developed and scaled They need proven solutions they can deploy now This creates the forcing mechanism: Mandatory spending driven by legal requirements not market dynamics Compressed timelines that eliminate technology risk - only proven solutions work Severe financial penalties that make the economics of compliance obvious No escape route - every major facility must comply or face bankruptcy-level costs The EU created approximately €50-80B in forced capital deployment Just in industrial heat decarbonization Over the next 7-10 years That number comes from basic math: 2,000+ major industrial facilities across EU Average emissions of 200,000 - 2,000,000 tons CO2 annually per facility Must reduce by 55% by 2030, 80% by 2035 At current penalty and ETS pricing, non-compliance costs more than facility revenue The spending is mandatory The timeline is compressed The penalties are severe This is what creates the opportunity EVERYONE INSTANTLY SUBSCRIBES TO THE BELIEF THAT REGULATION CREATES COSTS You cannot look at regulatory mandates the way everyone else does and expect to find opportunities they don't see Everyone instantly subscribes to the belief that regulation reduces returns But really they are subscribing to more than just that That means they let the following into their thinking: Compliance is expensive and drags on profitability Regulated sectors should be avoided or deprioritized Government mandates destroy value instead of creating it Businesses built around regulatory requirements are somehow less legitimate Industries facing regulatory pressure have worse risk-adjusted returns Any opportunity in a regulated sector must overcome the "regulation discount" And probably 50 other assumptions get embedded in their framework that prevent them from seeing what's actually there When you subscribe to a belief as truth without questioning it So much comes with that which will hide in your thinking and could steer you away from opportunities for the rest of your career Not even as a direct result of that belief But just from what also must be true for that thing to be true WITH THE EU EMISSIONS DIRECTIVE EXAMPLE Me not instantly accepting that regulatory compliance is a cost to avoid did not come from arrogance It came from honest curiosity So what did I do and what can you do when faced with what is posed as unquestionable consensus by people who've never read the actual regulatory text? You simply think about it and give some effort Not coming from a place of trying to disprove that "regulation equals bad returns" But understanding WHY people think that How did they come to this conclusion? Did they actually read the directive? Did they model the economics of forced compliance spending? Did they map the timeline and penalty structures? Or did they just inherit the framework from industry consensus without questioning it? AN IMPORTANT NOTE HERE It makes no sense to deploy capital in a way that isn't curated to what you as an individual think creates opportunities That is what you're doing this for Not to be contrarian for the sake of it But to find actual opportunities by only pursuing theses that resonate with your own analysis Not based on what everyone else is doing I ACTUALLY READ THE EU INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS DIRECTIVE Perhaps I take a look at the actual legislative text and see wow okay so the EU mandated that industrial facilities must reduce emissions by specific percentages by 2030-2035 Not suggested, mandated With penalty structures of €150-200 per ton CO2 by 2030 Plus ETS allowances at similar prices even for compliant facilities Well what else goes into the claim that this "creates costs" for investors to avoid? What forced capital deployment can be identified and measured? Are we sure regulation is the reason this sector should be avoided? How much are facilities forced to spend to comply? How desperate are they for solutions that actually work economically? How compressed is the timeline and what does that mean for technology risk? You can have a thesis about where to deploy capital which is in itself more important than following consensus deal flow That is a fact because no one can tell me what opportunities I should pursue I get to decide based on my own analysis Therefore I get to acknowledge that consensus says avoid regulated sectors but continue to pursue opportunities there anyway You can agree regulation creates complexity but not agree that it aligns with avoiding the sector entirely Many people get stuck on this They never think about what actually creates opportunities and why certain frameworks might be wrong Actually most of the successful PE operators I know do not give this thought They are like algorithms that deploy capital efficiently but are slaves to consensus Following the same deal flow everyone else sees Competing for the same assets at inflated prices With it comes deployed capital and hopefully returns to raise larger funds This is not at all what they would say is most important to them if you asked them They wouldn't say it because people would look at them funny The industry says strategic value creation, operational excellence, proprietary deal flow are what matter People would say anyone who admits they just follow consensus and compete on price is unsophisticated PERSONALLY I THINK THEY LIKE THE FEELING OF DEPLOYING CAPITAL And the validation from LPs eases the feeling of inadequacy from not having truly differentiated opportunities They get addicted to the feeling of winning deals and never think about why they like it or what sacrifices are being made The market is their compass Deploying capital is them getting closer to building a track record People can do whatever they want I cannot tell someone their approach to finding deals is not legitimate Because it obviously works for many people, it's happening But I can encourage them to acknowledge a very big problem with logic And encourage them to place true value onto solving this problem PROBLEMS ARE OBSTACLES THAT GET IN THE WAY OF FINDING ACTUAL OPPORTUNITIES The more consistently you identify the same problem as an obstacle the stronger this grows inside your conviction You start to see this problem everywhere Everyone competing for consensus deals Everyone avoiding regulated sectors without questioning why Everyone following the same playbooks about SMB roll-ups All the sudden it becomes a complete wall blocking the industry from seeing what's actually there At this point it turns into your edge Now your analysis has meaning You must look where others won't to find opportunities they don't see You are moving with intention toward non-consensus sectors You have a vision of where forced capital deployment creates opportunities You have something to channel your capital into that you deeply believe creates asymmetric returns You now have a unique lens for evaluating opportunities Honestly assessing whether something is actually attractive or just consensus THE EU INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS DIRECTIVE IS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE The directive mandated specific emissions reductions by 2030-2035 For a cement plant emitting 1 million tons CO2 annually, penalties are €150-200M per year by 2030 Plus ETS allowances of another €150-200M Total annual cost of €300-400M if they don't decarbonize For a paper mill doing 80,000 tons, that's €12-15M in penalties plus €8-10M in ETS costs They will spend literally anything that costs less than that to avoid these costs This creates approximately €50-80B in mandatory capital deployment over the next decade Just in industrial heat decarbonization That number isn't speculative It's basic math on facility emissions, penalty structures, and compliance timelines EVERYONE IN CLIMATE TECH SEES THIS AND BUILDS THE WRONG THING They look at €50-80B in forced spending and think "we should innovate" Novel thermal storage materials Advanced heat pumps Hydrogen production breakthroughs They're trying to compete on technology Hoping for breakthroughs that make their solution win Wrong game entirely The timeline doesn't allow for technology development Facilities must comply by 2030 That's 5-6 years from now Not enough time to develop, test, and scale new technology The actual opportunity is recognizing that proven technology already exists Thermal energy storage has been deployed in concentrated solar plants since the 1980s Molten salt storage, ceramic thermal batteries, phase-change materials All proven, all commercial, all ready to deploy today Nobody's deploying it to this specific mandatory market at scale THE ACTUAL PROBLEM FACILITIES FACE RIGHT NOW They have mandatory emissions reductions by 2030-2035 Compliance plans due 2025 Implementation must begin 2027 Current options don't work economically: Direct electrification requires €20-30M per facility, grid infrastructure that doesn't exist, electricity 40-60% more expensive than gas Hydrogen conversion requires €25-40M for burner conversion, hydrogen at €8-12/kg versus gas equivalent of €3-4/kg Neither solution closes economically But they still must spend money to comply Timeline is compressed - no time for breakthrough technology Gun to their head Forced capital deployment No legitimate solution at scale This is where opportunity lives THERMAL STORAGE SOLVES THIS COMPLETELY WITH PROVEN TECHNOLOGY Install modular thermal storage at the facility Charges using grid electricity when it's cheap or free (200+ hours annually in Germany/Scandinavia when wind overproduces) Discharges stored heat into existing steam systems No process modifications required Can be deployed and operational within 12-18 months The economics for a typical Swedish paper mill: €8M capital cost for 20 MWh thermal storage Replaces natural gas worth €60-80 per MWh Annual value creation: €10-15M Operating costs: €2-3M Net annual value: €7-12M Payback: 3-4 years including EU subsidies covering 30-40% of capital After payback they save €3-4M annually on energy Plus avoid €12M annually in penalties Plus avoid €8-10M annually in ETS allowances That's €20M+ in annual value from €8M investment The solution works economically today And can be deployed within the compressed regulatory timeline €50-80B IN FORCED SPENDING, FRAGMENTED SUPPLY, NOBODY EXECUTING AT SCALE This is what everyone misses Massive mandatory market with compressed timeline, guaranteed demand, proven technology, excellent economics But the supply side is completely fragmented 200+ small thermal storage suppliers across Europe Most doing €5-20M annual revenue Selling to concentrated solar and niche industrial applications None focused on this specific mandatory market None building commercial infrastructure to serve industrial facilities at scale None have the reference customers or installation capacity to serve 2,000+ facilities by 2030 THE CONSOLIDATION THESIS IS OBVIOUS Market size: €50-80B mandatory deployment over 7-10 years Timeline: Compressed to 2030-2035, facilities must deploy now Market structure: Highly fragmented, 200+ small suppliers Regulatory catalyst: Severe penalties plus ETS costs create guaranteed demand Technology proven: Zero R&D risk, can deploy immediately Customer urgency: Must comply by 2030, running out of time Current solutions inadequate: Creates massive opportunity for thermal storage Consolidation benefits: Scale in procurement (30-40% cheaper components), installation capacity (50+ projects annually vs 5-10 for independents), reference customers, multi-site contracts, ability to meet compressed timelines After consolidating 15-20 suppliers you have structural advantages small players cannot match They lack the installation capacity to serve customers on compressed timelines They lack the references to win large contracts They lack the scale to handle 50+ simultaneous projects They lack the procurement advantages to match pricing THE MATH ON BUILDING THIS Years 1-2: Acquire 3-4 suppliers for €30-50M, get to €40-60M revenue, execute first 10-15 installations by end of 2026 Years 3-4: Acquire 8-10 more suppliers for €80-120M, scale to €200-250M revenue, expand to cement and steel, have 40-50 reference installations by 2028 Years 5-7: Selective bolt-ons plus massive organic growth as regulatory deadline approaches, scale to €800M-1.2B revenue, exit at 12-15x EBITDA Total capital: €400-500M Exit value: €3-5B MOIC: 6-10x This is how it works when you find forced capital deployment with compressed timelines before it's consensus WHY THIS ISN'T CONSENSUS YET Most PE firms don't do regulatory analysis to find sectors They look at market reports about software and healthcare They follow banker deal flow showing consensus opportunities They inherited the framework that regulation equals bad returns They're not reading the actual EU directives to understand penalty structures and compliance timelines So opportunities like this sit there Perfect PE characteristics but nobody's building the thesis Because it requires work most people won't do Reading 300 pages of legislative text Modeling facility-level compliance economics Understanding penalty structures and ETS pricing Mapping compliance timelines and technology deployment windows THE SMB MARKETPLACE CONTENT CREATORS COMPLETELY MISS THIS You see them posting frameworks about boring businesses HVAC roll-ups, landscaping consolidation, plumbing aggregation "The 7-step framework for evaluating SMB acquisitions" "Why boring businesses generate the best returns" They're pattern matching to what worked for someone else Optimizing tactics for competing in consensus sectors How to find sellers better, negotiate better, finance better Meanwhile €50-80B in mandatory spending with compressed timelines sits in a sector they'll never look at Because it doesn't fit their framework And it requires reading regulatory documents instead of following playbooks They're too busy posting about loving the process to read the actual directives BEHIND EVERY AVOIDED SECTOR THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY Behind every opportunity you can find asymmetric returns But if everyone says regulated sectors have worse returns That can be true for most people but not align with what I've found My analysis shows regulatory mandates with compressed timelines create forced spending in fragmented markets First mover who consolidates captures the sector before it's consensus Most people won't do the regulatory analysis work required Which means opportunities are available to those who will THE ACTUAL SCALE OF WHAT THE EU CREATED Industrial heat: 20% of EU carbon emissions, roughly 800M tons CO2 annually Must reduce by 55% by 2030, 80% by 2035 At €150-200 per ton penalties plus €150-200 ETS allowances, non-compliance costs €240-320B annually by 2030 No company can afford that They're economically forced to spend capital €50-80B required just for thermal decarbonization 2,000+ industrial facilities that must deploy solutions by 2030: Paper and pulp: 500+ facilities Cement: 200+ plants Steel: 150+ facilities Chemicals: 400+ plants Glass: 300+ facilities Food processing: 450+ facilities Each facing mandatory reductions with compressed timelines, inadequate current solutions, severe financial consequences This isn't speculative This is counting actual facilities with actual emissions facing actual penalties on actual timelines The spending will happen between now and 2030 DIFFERENT WAYS TO CAPTURE THIS DEPENDING ON YOUR SITUATION €300-500M in PE capital: Full pan-European roll-up, consolidate 15-20 suppliers, exit for €3-5B €50-100M: Regional platform in Scandinavia or Germany, dominate that market, exit for €300-500M €10-25M: Partner with supplier, build reference base, sell to larger player Industry relationships but limited capital: Broker between facilities and suppliers, take fees on deals, eventually get acquired or backward integrate Thermal engineering expertise but no capital: Provide technical diligence for financial players, partner for equity split You don't need €500M to capture value You need to understand where value gets created and position accordingly Multiple entry points depending on what you bring THIS IS WHAT REGULATORY MANDATES WITH COMPRESSED TIMELINES ACTUALLY CREATE Not costs to avoid €50-80B in forced spending to capture over 5-7 years Severe penalties plus ETS costs making non-compliance impossible Compressed timeline eliminating technology risk - only proven solutions work Current solutions don't work so new deployment gets premium pricing Fragmented supply so consolidation creates structural advantages Desperate customers because they're running out of time This is the pattern worth looking for Not optional spending where you compete on value Mandatory spending with compressed timelines where you execute better than fragmented alternatives MOST PEOPLE WILL NEVER SEE THIS Because they inherited the framework that regulation equals bad returns They won't read 300 pages of boring directives They won't model facility-level compliance economics They won't map penalty structures and timelines They won't question whether their assumptions are true So they'll keep competing for consensus deals in unregulated sectors While €50-80B in forced spending with a 2030 deadline sits there Waiting for someone willing to do the work I'LL WRITE ABOUT THE NEXT ONE SOON There are 5-6 other EU regulatory mandates with similar characteristics European defense procurement modernization, reshoring infrastructure requirements, grid interconnection mandates, water treatment standards, building energy retrofits Each one €20-50B in addressable spend with compressed timelines Same pattern: forced spending, compressed deployment windows, fragmented supply, proven solutions, severe penalties for non-compliance Different sectors Same opportunity for whoever reads the actual regulatory text and models the economics Instead of following consensus frameworks about avoiding regulation TL;DR Regulation isn't a cost to avoid It's forced capital deployment with compressed timelines to capture The EU emissions directive created €50-80B in mandatory spending that must happen by 2030 Everyone sees it and builds the wrong thing Or avoids it entirely because "regulation equals bad returns" Meanwhile the opportunity sits there Proven technology that can deploy immediately, fragmented suppliers, desperate customers facing 2030 deadline, excellent economics For whoever questions consensus and does the boring work of reading the actual directives That's the entire point Not following playbooks about SMB roll-ups Reading the actual regulatory documents others won't read Finding forced capital deployment with compressed timelines Building consolidation positions before they're consensus Everything else is just competing for consensus deals at inflated multiples and hoping for the best

@moneyfetishist may just be too late- but i’m interested in learning how you learned to eloquently write your thoughts as comprehensive as you’ve done?

spent the last few hours answering questions from strangers on the internet while sitting on a plane and the thing that keeps striking me is how similar every question sounds once you strip away the context the BB analyst making $200K wants to know if his life has meaning. the 20-year-old in a frat wants to know if he is on the right path. the guy running a $15M environmental services company cannot sleep because his leverage ratio scares him even though his covenants are fine. the first-year law student wants someone to tell him the career pivot will work out. the immigrant who got laid off wants to know he is not falling behind permanently the details are different. the feeling underneath is identical. am I going to be okay we pretend that money and status and titles fix this. they do not. I sit in rooms with people who control nine-figure portfolios and they are nervous about the same things as everyone else. they just have more expensive language for it. the fund manager calls it "risk management." the analyst calls it "career strategy." the 20-year-old calls it "figuring out my path." same anxiety wearing different suits I watched a grown man worth more than most people will earn in ten lifetimes throw a tantrum in a conference room because someone questioned his assumption in a model. not his competence. not his track record. an assumption in a spreadsheet. a cell in Excel. he turned red and raised his voice because for 15 seconds he felt like he might be wrong about something and his entire identity could not absorb that possibility that is not a professional disagreement. that is a kid on a playground who got told he is not the fastest runner Schopenhauer wrote that humans are not rational beings who occasionally feel emotions. we are emotional beings who occasionally think rationally. the rationality is the exception. the feeling is the baseline. every framework we build in finance and in business and in life is an attempt to impose order on a brain that is fundamentally running on fear and desire and the need to be seen as competent by other people who are also running on fear and desire the most dangerous version of this is the person who thinks they have outgrown it. the one who believes that enough success or enough money or enough status has made them rational. that person is not more rational. they are less accountable. nobody around them pushes back anymore so the irrational impulses go unchecked and get rebranded as conviction and vision and leadership the best operators I know are the ones who understand that they are still unreasonable kids underneath everything. they lose their temper over small things. they take criticism personally even when it is constructive. they make emotional decisions and reverse-engineer a logical justification after the fact. the difference is they know they do this. they have systems to catch it. they hire people who are allowed to tell them when they are being stupid. they build in a 24-hour delay before any decision made while angry the worst operators are the ones who think they have evolved past it. they confuse pattern recognition with wisdom. they confuse wealth with emotional maturity. they confuse the silence of the people around them with agreement when it is actually just fear Nietzsche said that the most common form of human stupidity is forgetting what one is trying to do. I think the more common form is forgetting what one is. which is a complicated animal that learned to use spreadsheets but never stopped being afraid of the dark none of us outgrow being unreasonable. the question is whether we build a life that accounts for it or one that pretends it does not exist thanks for the questions today. you are all going to be fine. even the ones who do not feel like it right now

@izebel_eth I’m betting aggressively on hyperliquid..i want to allocate all my capital buying up dips instead of getting carried away on alternative assets like LIT. thanks for the reply.

@baseflwer all your money in single best idea is absolutely the best way to aggressively grow your portfolio (as long as your right) i did this 4+ times to come back from blowups but at current stage am more focused on consistency than aggression tbh, i feel like i graduated a bit

its not hyperliquid vs lighter its hyperliquid and lighter vs the drifts of the world

@izebel_eth jez, what happened with put all your money in your single best.. not your second best idea. Why are you approaching the perps trade differently in this regard specifically?

i am very specific about the exchanges i support, and i have large positions in each: 1. hyperliquid is the best, and i continue to support them and their ecosystem 2. lighter is #2 with retail advantage + specific tech advantages that i think will let it do spot collat best 3. variationals model is click trading + rfq = not fighting other exchanges for clob liquidity i fully believe the perp pie will grow enough that i will make money on all three

@N017_kng @Ashton_1nvests 👀

@Ashton_1nvests 👀

$SNAP is quietly becoming a cash flow machine… and most people still don’t see it. Free cash flow went from basically nothing to hundreds of millions in just a couple years. ~$35M in 2023 ~$219M in 2024 ~$400M+ recently That’s not normal growth. That’s a business inflecting. And it’s not just one good quarter either… Snap just printed over $200M in FCF in a single quarter. So what’s happening? The business is finally showing operating leverage. Revenue is growing Margins are improving Costs are becoming more efficient Now look at the estimates… They’re projecting steady growth out over the next few years. But honestly… those look conservative. Why? Because they’re not fully pricing in: - Snapchat+ scaling - Improving ad platform + AI targeting - Stronger international monetization - Continued operating leverage Now let’s address the biggest bear case: Stock-based compensation. Yes, SBC has been high. And yes, it creates dilution. But here’s what matters… The business is now generating real cash. That means Snap has flexibility. As cash flow grows, they can: - Offset dilution - Reduce reliance on SBC over time - Let operating leverage do the heavy lifting SBC is a concern if the business isn’t improving. That’s not the case here. The fundamentals are getting stronger, not weaker.

just a quick update: US and Iran conflict continues BTC less than 70k Global unrest worsens as Oil prices surge. I have started dipping my money back in. i’ll slowly start dca’ing here with a 1 year expiry.

head down. stay focused. holding/buying crypto will be by far the hardest decision you'll have to make over the next year or 2. "Doom and Gloom" propaganda will slowly grow as more people capitulate; saturating the timeline with dark and cynical views and beliefs. Those same people were optimistic and euphoric at the markets ATH so, don't regard their opinion. keep your head down. and grow you positions. and remember: "Price goes down at some point no matter the euphoria but, it goes up too, at some point, no matter the fear".

Q1 I’ll continue to be SHORT going into the first three months of 2026 my reasons are the BOTH the GOLD and SILVER rallies; to me these are indicators of fear. These assets are safe haven investments. So, it further demonstrates a fear in the markets. So, i’ll remain cautious and short. also with my contrarian view, many market participants are still overly optimistic which is good, but until bullish rallies are met with heavy resistance and pessimism. I’ll remain short. -baseflwer

@ChudCrentis 😭

Bro is everyone short?? I don’t see a single long on my timeline I mean I get it but…what is this PVE?

sometimes trading is far easier than many of us make it out to be. thats partly why the “nothing ever happens crowd” or the traders who remain patient across many months outperform. multiple times every year there are opportunities where it is clearly obvious where prices will be compared to where they are now. sometimes assets fall so low far below their lifetime low that buying at those levels is 70%-80% profitable all that said I was a $snap buyer.

@ChudCrentis wojak.

Alright hold on lemme get my glasses

@ChudCrentis we all have biases.. just 2 chuds tryna make it 😂

Very fair critique, and I do have the tendency to do the calculations and understand with the end result will look like, while not appreciating the time it takes to achieve it. So, you make a very good point! With this particular event, I do think that certain leverage areas from Trump’s opposition have either been neutralized or are well on their way to being neutralized. A couple weeks ago I was more pessimistic. But again, to your point, it may take much more time than I foresee. I wouldn’t be surprised if thats the case. My optimism blinds me at times 😁

@ChudCrentis curious how you see a pump here? or you’re just a perma bull

I do agree the crypto will find a bottom before equities. but i do find one thing unique about your perspective. i find you over estimate the capabilities of trump and underestimate the lengths/capabilities of his enemies and their ambitions. i believe perhaps for personal reasons…that the market will grind lower because this is just the beginning of many more escalations from tariffs -> ICE-> regime takeovers-> iran conflict-> cuba? there’s a lot that needs to be achieved under trumps regime and his enemies will play a significant role in disrupting and destabilizing those things time will tell but i don’t think sentiment bottoms here. iran may be resolved soon idk but it won’t stop there.

To be fair it looks awful But my thoughts are crypto bottoms before equities, and I think equities bottom within the next week or two. So we’d be in that timeframe where crypto would start its very uneasy grind higher Sentiment is absolutely abysmal, most folks are in the mindset of this war being as drawn out as something like Iraq. I actually think trump is working with Iran since the beginning of this conflict and when they decide to end this conflict it will wrap up way faster and cleaner than most people will imagine. Zero rate cuts are priced in for ‘26 but Trump/Bessent will never let that happen. The war has exposed Europe as a weak with an inability to be self-reliant for things like energy and a clearly diminished role in global policy. Investors in European bonds/equities will have capital flight, which will likely end up in US markets/treasuries. Ukraine war will wrap up very soon, as high oil prices crush Ukraine/Europe but generate massive profits for Russia. US will stop helping Ukraine “to focus on the ME”. So by May you could have a situation where you have no active wars occurring, a NASTY Q1 GDP print behind you and rate cuts back on the table. BTC could always go to 50k like everyone is predicting but i’d rather be accumulating spot here instead of shorting the hole. Of course I could be right about the political analysis and wrong about price action — happens a lot. But i think there’s enough of an edge for me here to bet on it

@CheekyPeebs @CrashiusClay69 nah mate

@CrashiusClay69 $maxxing coded

Study the 2M-10M range of what I’ve gotten into The golden life changing 1% of my following gets rich zone We are in it bros Some day it’s gonna pay off.

@N017_kng positioned in snap 🙈

@baseflwer Crypto bull run* Btw stonk bull run will resume once the war is over

90k before 150k

@N017_kng I believe that too. i’ve been a buyer since jan.

@baseflwer The next bull run will push it to ~200k imho Let’s see

@N017_kng monitor

Could end up being 40k-50k Monitor

@adeadmarket 11 likes…what is this