markus

@cointradernik lows are in o7

$BTC As per this week’s Outlook — key level is still 65.8k for Bitcoin to hold above; below that I think we run 60k towards 57-58 (maybe even 55 on a wick which would be extremely favourable for levered longs imo) Above yesterday’s high I think we retest the 90d rolling VWAP into 77k and that’s again where the most favourable shorts are, because acceptance above that and we’re going to 88 I do not think you get offered 2.5 std devs below 365d again — which is currently around 52

VAPES ARE A DEEP STATE PSYOP DESIGNED TO CONDITION US TO ENJOY SUCKING ROBOT DICKS. ONCE AI TAKES AWAY ALL OUR JOBS AND THE ONLY THING LEFT FOR HUMANITY IS TO BE SEX SLAVES FOR ROBOTS!! REAL EYES REALIZE CLANKER LIES!!!! DON’T FALL FOR IT!!! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!

@0xShual Well said. Also so refreshing to read something longer that wasn’t written by AI, it’s like the weight of reading the same old word patterns over and over has been lifted

I've been wrestling with a thought I can't quite articulate cleanly, but I'll try. I know I hardly ever do this nowadays, but beware: this one's a long ass tweet. There seems to be a curve people travel when they engage seriously with AI. It feels a bit like the market cycle graph, or even someone who tries psychedelics for the first time. I'll try to explain. The first phase is genuine awe. I've seen non-technical people discover what these tools can do and lose their shit. (@0xkyle__ for example, who the quoted tweet is responding to). They instantly clear their inboxes, automate their calendars, spin up applications without writing code, and suddenly feel like the interface between intention and execution has collapsed. "I am a god now, the limit is my imagination", and this is actually correct about something: the interface to capability feels fundamentally changed. The non-technical person isn't wrong that they can now do things that previously required either technical skill or hiring someone with technical skill. That's a real thing. Capability has been democratized and made easily available. Then there's the technical person's retort (quoted tweet). "It's a glorified text generator. It has no emergent thinking. The more you understand the architecture, the less impressed you are." These people often point to the failures ("make shitty code", "inability to do novel things", "they're brittle", "ppl are just mass producing slop daily task managers and not meaningful, complex products"). They are also correct. But at a different level of description. Yes, it's predicting tokens. Yes, it doesn't have persistent memory, can't truly learn within a conversation in the way a human does, makes confident mistakes, and has real architectural limitations. But this (reductionist) critique sometimes smuggles in an assumption that if you can describe the mechanism, you've explained away the phenomenon. I don't know if these systems think. I'm not sure I know what thinking means precisely enough to answer that. What I notice is that people who are certain it's not thinking seem very confident about what thinking is, and I don't think anyone's earned that confidence yet. We point at our own cognition and say "that, the thing I do"--but we can't actually specify what we're pointing at. The ceiling question is where I find myself most uncertain. The "AI can't do X" predictions have been wrong often enough that I don't put much stock in confident limits. At the same time, current systems have obvious constraints: no learning within a conversation, errors that feel brittle rather than like honest mistakes, moments where it seems like performance of understanding rather than actual understanding. And then there's a third position-- the researchers. The experts among experts. The people who are tracking and actively pushing the field forward. They're not dismissive. They're certainly not naive. They're watching the _curve_ and wondering/fearing where it goes. Not what the system is now, but what the curve suggests about what's coming, and whether we have the wisdom to navigate it. When someone says "AI is just predicting the next token," they're describing the mechanism. When someone says "it built me a working application," they're describing the phenomenon. Not contradictory things. Orthogonal. Water is "just" hydrogen and oxygen, but that tells you nothing about what water does, how it behaves, why it's wet. The reductive explanation is true but incomplete. "Just statistics" often gets said like it settles something, when really isn't that where the interesting questions begin? What patterns, matching against what? And why does that yield something that can engage novel problems and hold context across a conversation? When someone first takes psychedelics, and I mean a proper dose, that experience fundamentally changes their priors. (recent public example is @bryan_johnson) It rearranges something in your model of reality. You see (not 'understand', but see) that perception is constructed, that the self is more... porous than it feels, that consciousness has textures you didn't know were there. And then you tell someone and you immediately worry how insane (or banal) you sound. "We're all connected, man", sure buddy. With AI, isn't there something similar? You use it seriously, and something suddenly clicks about what's now possible. The interface between intention and execution has changed. You feel it before you can articulate it. And then you try to explain it to someone who hasn't engaged, and you sound either manic ("I am a god now") or underwhelming ("it helped me clear my inbox"). In both cases, the experience creates knowledge that doesn't transfer through description. The skeptic can always say "it's just serotonin agonism" or "it's just token prediction" and they're correct at the mechanistic level while completely missing what happened at the experiential level. I'm sure you had a friend or someone from school who did psychedelics for the first time at a young age, and suddenly they've found the answer. The experience is so vivid, so obviously more real than regular life, that it feels like a revelation of how things actually are. Sometimes, it metastasizes into a new framing: this is the truth, and sober life is somehow lesser, a falling away from the truth. And if you've done enough psychedelics in your life and undergone some real proper fucking washes, and you met like a 20yo who took acid for the first or second time, in the outskirts of a rave, and you see and hear from them these exact revelations, as their mind and perception of consciousness and its nature, and life, changes in front of you, you get it too... But it's different, isn't it? But with more experience, something shifts. And it's hard to articulate because it's not like you learn new propositional content. It's more like... the frame changes. You've already learned that the insight was never separate from life--it was always about life. The dissolving of self-boundaries, the sense that everything is connected, the vividness. They're showing you something about this, the thing you're already in. You did the thing, you integrate its revelations, and you return to normal life. You might be more open, more aware that your model of reality is a model. But you're still living your life. The revelation doesn't do the work for you. The AI capability shift feels similar. The access is real. The tools are finally working. But there is this fantasy of lying on a beach while it handles everything, getting a notification when everything's sorted... I guess that vision is coherent but somehow thin, existentially? Humans have spent a long time building identities around competence, craft, and the slow accumulation of skill. If the skill becomes trivially accessible, what happens to the identity? And I think this question is a real thing people are already having trouble with. Some people are thriving with these tools because they had taste and vision but lacked technical execution. Others are finding that the technical execution was the thing they were good at, and that's fucking them up. I don't really know. But what I do know is this: Kind of like with psychedelics, the first real experience with AI changes your priors. But you have to figure out what to do with that. The insight is definitely real, but the integration is a separate problem. (that requires honing a skill, by the way) So work on the integration, but try not to make it existentially thin.

@cryptoklotz you still hold memes?

my overall positioning remains the same: holding what i have through near-term volatility with an eye toward liq expansion/good headlines in dec-jan. not adding here though.

yeah so unfortch, the bad scenario is playing out so far, locally (s&p above 6800 on news gov is gonna reopen, BTC unable to sustain a bid) would guess we either sweep 98k or just chop between 100-106k while people absolutely lose their minds not really interested in adding until way, *way* lower

@cryptoklotz but for real though when do we face the music

-it's late 2026 -the s&p just crossed 10,000 -gold cooled, then bounced back to hit $6k/oz -BTC remains rangebound between 107-130k -"the riper the berry, the sweeter the juice! huge pump any day now!" you say, slumped in a doorway, as people pinch their noses and step over you

@Pentosh1 sounds like we’ve topped

Rate cuts. The end of QT, and a trade deal with China all in one day Let’s see how much crypto is up

You gotta go & greedy on every fking soooolaana diiiiiipp This is peak solana onboarding

being a spot chad is great because you become poor much more slowly and you really get to enjoy the full experience

i think once i realised how long it takes to save up $100k+ working a real job i started taking excessive risk

@ramonos looks like hammy before it died

guess the memecoin hint: it’s the next 9 figures runner

@inmortalcrypto $500

A +500 days accumulation is over Don't underestimate $SOL

@diapsalmata_0x $50

$POPCAT if this OI unfolds the way i think it will, this chart is tearing straight through $5.

man fuck ansem fr

@cryptoklotz run the memes back

Letter to my own PTSD: - Good things are allowed to happen. - A dozen high reliability business cycle and risk indicators are pointing to continued expansion for equities, and a massive catch-up pump + price discovery for BTC (Russell, ISM, copper/gold, etc) - It’s all aligning with 4 year cycle and Q4 seasonality meme - The current administration wants to run it hot - Volatility will continue, but at this point days where BTC puts in 5-10k candles should be considered a precedented outcome, and honestly possibly even the most likely outcome. Open up your wealth chakra.

@cryptoklotz @metahacker_ but why are the ETH and SOL prices so fucking shit compared to last cycle ATHs i just cant sell these levels

yeah i'd maintain that even with today's slump, probably 80% of folks would outperform themselves simply full stacking it today, right this minute. i'm comfortable pushing for higher for two reasons: 1) i have a data-driven thesis and the conviction that comes with it 2) (and this is important), i took ~50% of my port to cash last jan. i can now afford to squeeze a little more risk out, knowing i at least paid myself for my time

posting this now while prices are down, because people 100% ignore this when things are looking rosy shoot to sell "good enough" for your portfolio, because (and i know this is hard to believe): selling "good enough" is going to outperform whatever "but this would be amazing" targets you have for 99% of people 99% of the time. why? "good enough" is usually "as good as it gets", while "amazing" is often relying on an extension of prices that typically incorporate moonboy psyop price levels and/or a 10 part parlay set of path dependencies all hitting generally, each additional dollar beyond "good enough" goes from 2 or 3 units of risk, to 20 or 30, while only potentially putting your portfolio a small fraction ahead of "good enough" (ie no big difference in practical terms, but an astonishingly higher rate of blowing it) on what 'blowing it' means, i mean a round trip. this all wouldn't be a problem if recognizing a top in real time was a trivial thing, and people were good at selling on the way down, but neither of those things are true. sell 'good enough' and be happy. if 'good enough' isn't a meaningful change to your life, compounding what the market gives you later is infinitely better than sitting there with nothing, wondering what you just spent 2-3 years paying attention to, for nothing.

@FrothlessPlease 🙏

@SmilesUK t.me/CRYPTOCOINMEMES

The past few months have been an absolute trip. I have been on a creative journey, exploring the limits of what I can achieve as a video editor. These two videos are 3 months apart. When I started, I had never even opened CapCut before. Being part of a community of 114+ (!!!) insanely talented creators, always willing to share feedback and knowledge, has been a huge unlock. There is an art-first culture, and honestly, I’ve never seen anything like it. This really has become the largest and most exciting creative hub in Web 3. We have an entire tutorial series dedicated to learning memecoin-specific video editing. I was a music producer before locking in on CT, and I find video editing scratches that same itch. It is a great way to express myself creatively. I invite you to join me. Level up your skills, they stay with you forever. $CRYPTO

@FrothlessPlease have u got a link for the telegram? can’t find it :’(

@SmilesUK In our memes tg channel! Will be updated v soon too

@GeneralPudgy @monad gmonad

@monad Reply to this tweet if you need a nomination!!

Monad Cards: a token of appreciation for crypto twitter ~5,000 active CT accounts are eligible to claim. Each can nominate 3 friends. 10,000 nominations will be accepted on a first come, first served basis. You should probably claim it before it closes