Hunzi

Sobering

This is a pretty sick dashboard You can find everything about hyperliquid in one place: hl.eco s/o to the guys for building it

@erosthehami Yeah this post is meant to say don’t underestimate the vol of coins. Could see how it reads as trade stocks

metrosexuality used to have class to it

bros...

Paris, Texas Wim Wenders, 1984.

these pants are crazy

SWEET MOTHER OF SATOSHI THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A REDUCE-ONLY ORDER

alexander mcqueen ‘black’ (2004)

the libs hate that i’ve got a data center in my balls

@hellojintao @notmigmist If im interest, is there anywhere i could find your old matches??

@notmigmist thanks dude. i am extremely good at poker

love it when people cry after being called out and all they can say is fat jew good one 🤣

What if we are in the foothills of the greatest bubble in history? I see a strong case that we are. We have the convergence of three powerful factors. The first is passive flows. This has been the biggest shift in financial markets over recent decades. We have roughly $6-7bn entering the US equity markets every day in the form of passive flows, through retirement accounts, corporate buybacks, and other sources. This transformative force has added an upward bias to the equity markets, which also means lower downside sensitivity to negative events such as geopolitical issues, economic weakness, or monetary tightening. This broader theme is well known but the incremental thesis here is it also drives a cumulative snowball effect. Passive flows eventually crowd out the free float, as any equities absorbed by passive flows have left the market permanently (other than specific conditions, such as mass job loss). A smaller free float reduces liquidity and makes price more sensitive to discretionary flows. The shrinking free float combined with an upward sloping character increases the odds of a parabolic blowoff in equity indices. The trading liquidity in the largest stocks (such as Mag7) has not proportionally increased with their market caps. As they get larger, the stocks get more sensitive to flows on a % basis, and price-agnostic passive flows continually jam more capital into them as they get progressively less liquid and more inelastic, which then further increases concentration and strengthens these effects in a loop. The second is behavioral training. As the passive flows paradigm has continued over time, equity market participants have become increasingly relaxed, more convicted in the idea of continual upside, and reluctant to sell in response to volatility or exogenous negative events. Naturally, this behavior shifts begets more upside-biased price action, which further shifts behavior, in a reflexive loop. This has to break at some point, but leading up to the apex, you could see how this would encourage a complete lack of selling and thus vertical price action on any incoming flows. The idea of a central bank put, in addition to a Trump put where he will find ways to influence the market higher, are key pillars of the market’s conviction to never sell equities. Many investors sold and got left behind during the tariff saga last year, and that traumatic memory was evident in the way the market has reacted to the Iran war. Despite a lack of resolution, the markets have powered higher and are now meaningfully above where they were sitting before the conflict. This is driven by the fear of missing out being greater than the fear of losing. This episode was instructive in that memetic consensus around buying every dip and never selling is only strengthening. It is easy to assume that any given amount of flows entering the market will have equal impact. One of my variant views is that this is highly untrue. The price impact of any given flows is highly connected to the psychology of those incremental participants: how urgently the buyer is trying to buy, and how convicted the potential sellers are. If the sellers have no motivation to sell, and will only part with their shares for a much higher price, and meanwhile the buyer is desperate to buy, then those flows can have a massive price impact, multiples of what it would be in a more relaxed scenario. When you combine this market training, with the shrinking free float, you have an evolving market structure that has greater odds of explosive upside. Now, take this highly leveraged market structure, and throw in the most transformative technology cycle the world has ever seen. The potential upside from AI is inherently non-linear as it will be applied to itself to recursively self-improve. I believe there are many ways AI can create value that we cannot comprehend and dimension yet. For a while I had been more ambivalent of the impact of AI on equities due to the potential for mass layoffs negatively impacting passive flows and disrupting aggregate economic demand, but it is now looking more likely that we see gradual job loss as businesses focus on holding headcount flat and harvesting productivity enhancements to capture more revenue. This increases the odds of a goldilocks scenario, where we see significant earnings growth as AI drives increases economic activity (both from AI capex and by increasing the capacity of all business), while disinflation allows rate cuts. These factors create a scenario where we get a late 90s-like bubble in the equity market. Why wouldn’t we? We have created the god machine, the greatest technology ever, and it is starting to drive real and tangible benefits to businesses today – why wouldn’t we get a huge move higher in the equity markets? This right tail outcome looks significantly mispriced in the QQQ LEAPS market, where favored strikes with Dec 2028 deep OTM expirations would 17x if the Nasdaq would double by the end of 2027. The asymmetry here comes from the market pricing in a normal distribution of outcomes. Given what I know and believe about AI and the evolving market structure, a normal distribution is not possible. These 3 factors above coming together to drive an explosive bubble upwards is not a guaranteed outcome, but I believe the odds are much greater than what is being currently priced into these LEAPS. A double in the Nasdaq is not necessary to get paid on these LEAPS, but it wouldn't be as crazy as it sounds. One way would be aggregate earnings going up by 50% over 2 years, which at +22.5% per year is what it already has been doing, and then multiple going up by 30%. This is arguably conservative on earnings given the thesis, and assumes a multiple around 31x, which is the range high over the last few regimes, and about half of the 60x+ at the peak of the dotcom bubble. The missing ingredient is monetary easing. You may ask, how can we get a crazy bubble without liquidity expansion? I would characterize the current liquidity environment as being in the middle, certainly not abundant. One answer would be that equities have shifted character to need less liquidity to move higher, because of the passive flow dynamics described above. Equities used to trade more like crypto does now, as a direct expression of liquidity conditions. Another would be that I believe liquidity will eventually expand, one way or another. I don't think it is imminent, but we have good odds of it happening at some point within the next 2 years, and that is what kicks off the vertical phase. Given Trump’s appointment of Kevin Warsh and the certainty that he extracted a promise to cut rates, there are forces brewing in that direction. Kevin will still have to convince the rest of the FOMC, and given the inflationary pressures created by the Hormuz closure, no easing is likely in the near term. What is more likely is that post-Hormuz the inflationary impact gradually eases, we start lapping the tariff headwinds from last year, and the disinflationary impact from AI starts coming in as well. In the goldilocks scenario, we could see employment being flattish and preventing wage growth, while the capacity of the economy expands from the use of AI. We also have had meaningful banking deregulation already, with more to come. This is mostly within Trump's power and doesn't necessarily require full control of the Fed, up to a point. This has already had some impact, and there is a lot of upside still, it's an underrated driver for more liquidity. There are also left tail outcomes possible, such as an explosion of job loss and unwind of passive flows. In these scenarios, the market structure described above offers leverage to the downside, it cuts both ways. I view the right tail outcome as much more likely than the left tail, as history shows that when productivity improvements are made, usually businesses will still hold onto employees until a recession forces their hand. This divergence in outcomes is why I am focused on owning the right tail upside through leaps, instead of simply getting levered long stocks and holding them for a couple of years. There will also be significant volatility along the way. I believe these LEAPS to be the best risk/reward way to express this view. While semiconductors/SOXX would be a more levered and direct view on the AI bubble, as passive flows are a key pillar of the thesis, I want to align my expression with the flows. I also like that the broader Nasdaq contains many businesses that will be able to enhance their margins and accelerate earnings growth through the use of AI. It is harder to bet on individual companies for this thesis, and the ideal expression is through the index as I believe AI will be a tailwind on broader earnings growth for many companies, not just direct beneficiaries. Given the nature of the thesis, I want to isolate my bet to as few variables as possible. I prefer QQQ LEAPS over NQ due to tax reasons (QQQ get full LTCG after a year vs. NQ would have 60/40 LTCG/STCG treatment for any time horizon, and also gets marked-to-market for tax purposes at year end) as I intend on holding these for a long time, and want to encourage myself to stick with this trade. I usually don't like to pitch specific trades because it can influence my level of objectivity and attachment. In this case, I am trying to psyop myself into holding these no matter what, so thought that sharing it publicly would be beneficial. Do your own research, this is not financial advice, etc.

@dapersiantrader banga

Shared the resistance for those paying attention x.com/dapersiantrade…

Another trade added to the leaderboard 🤝 $10,000 ➡️ $52,000 shorting $BTC overnight

@captain_kole @KillaXBT mogging

@KillaXBT $BTC Not much to update on the swing long position so far. BTC is still making HL/HHs according to bullish MS. I've already added 50 times to my position below 80k, so upside is great if I happen to be right. For now, I still believe the 84-94k region is likely to get tested.

$BTC Not much to update on the swing short position so far. BTC is still hovering with nothing really happening at the moment. I’ve already derisked 50% of the position below 80K, so risk is managed if I happen to be wrong. For now, I still believe the 74–76K region is likely to get tested.

@flacidthegreat what a play

BANG

bullish

Betsy Johnson in “work in progress” AUTRE cover story shot by Pavel Golik

Y’all! Watch her documentary on HBO if you haven’t already.

2046 (2004) dir. wong kar-wai

I’ve never noticed that Yves Saint Laurent’s work was quite aligned with Elsa Schiaparelli’s in some ways. You could say that her beef with Gabby Chanel became prophetic to his relationship with Karl.