Matthew Brienen

49 posts

Matthew Brienen banner
Matthew Brienen

Matthew Brienen

@matty_charts

Managing Partner @ CryptoCharged ⚡

SoCal Katılım Ocak 2020
18 Takip Edilen81 Takipçiler
Matthew Brienen
Matthew Brienen@matty_charts·
7/7 After comparing every extreme Fear & Greed reading to every extreme RSI reading, I found only one comparable market regime to today's setup: The March-April 2020 COVID capitulation. That doesn't guarantee a bottom is in. But it does suggest we're operating in a historically unusual environment where both sentiment and momentum have reached extreme levels simultaneously.
English
0
0
2
48
Matthew Brienen
Matthew Brienen@matty_charts·
6/7 The overlap is what caught my attention. 2018's capitulation produced extreme RSI readings but not extreme Fear & Greed readings. The 2021 correction produced extreme Fear & Greed readings but not extreme RSI readings. Most corrections trigger one side of the equation. Very few trigger both.
English
1
0
1
50
Matthew Brienen
Matthew Brienen@matty_charts·
5/7 The longer-term RSI data is where things get interesting. Median 60-day return: +9.2% Median 180-day return: +48.7% 7 of 9 completed historical occurrences produced positive 180-day returns. Many of Bitcoin's strongest recoveries began during these same periods of momentum exhaustion.
English
1
0
1
40
Matthew Brienen
Matthew Brienen@matty_charts·
4/7 Momentum tells a similar story. Bitcoin has only reached a daily RSI reading of roughly 15.55 ±5 eleven times in its history. The short-term results were often ugly: Average 30-day return: -6.8% Median 30-day return: -4.7% In several cases, Bitcoin continued lower before ultimately finding a bottom.
English
1
0
1
44
Matthew Brienen
Matthew Brienen@matty_charts·
3/7 One nuance worth noting: The relationship between extreme fear and future returns appears to have weakened over time. The strongest recoveries following extreme fear occurred during 2020-2021. More recent examples have produced increasingly mixed results. Fear still matters, but it shouldn't be viewed as a standalone buy signal.
Matthew Brienen tweet media
English
1
0
1
60
Matthew Brienen
Matthew Brienen@matty_charts·
2/7 First, let's look at sentiment. I analyzed historical Fear & Greed readings within ±3 points of today's reading of 9. The short-term signal was noisy, but the longer-term picture improved: Median 30-day return: +4.6% Median 90-day return: +18.3% Median 180-day return: +11.3% Extreme fear has historically been a better indicator of opportunity than timing.
Matthew Brienen tweet media
English
1
0
1
76
Matthew Brienen
Matthew Brienen@matty_charts·
1/7 bitcoin:native is currently exhibiting a rare combination of momentum exhaustion and sentiment exhaustion. Daily RSI recently reached one of the most oversold readings in Bitcoin's history while the Fear & Greed Index collapsed to 9. The last time conditions looked similar was during the March-April 2020 COVID capitulation. A few observations from the data:
English
1
2
4
253
Matthew Brienen
Matthew Brienen@matty_charts·
This seems to assume Ironwood is migrating claims rather than constraining claims. My understanding is the entire purpose of the turnstile is to cap future redemptions based on trusted value-pool accounting. If unsupported claims can simply be "laundered" into Ironwood, then the proposal doesn't solve anything. The real question is whether turnstile accounting is sufficient to preserve supply soundness despite uncertainty around individual Orchard claims.
English
1
0
2
179
Jaun
Jaun@R3st4rtY0urL1f3·
Going from turnstile to turnstile without verifying legitimate spend notes is an exploiters wet dream An exploiter who doesn’t exercise his option to Snatch in a Bleed-Then-Snatch scenario can now launder his money into the new pool and it’ll be seen as legitimate. $ZEC will never be limited to 21 million coins without verifying legitimate supply from the Orchard Pool The other thing to note that an exploiter who hasn’t *yet* exercised his option to Snatch leaves credence to another scenario: an inside job. One where the proposal of a new turnstile is known and they know they can launder counterfeit coins into a legitimate pool. Anything after Ironwood is legitimate spend
mert@mert

ironwood is one of the most bullish things in the history of zcash, zk, and privacy in general BUT, everyone is sleeping on the bigger news the pool will be formally verified BEFORE Ironwood rolls out so the risk profile will reduce multiples before the upgrade is even live

English
3
1
10
789
Matthew Brienen
Matthew Brienen@matty_charts·
I agree the game theory matters and @hosseeb raises a fair point. Where I think we differ is that the absence of a drain is evidence against large-scale exploitation, not proof against exploitation. The turnstile discussion has actually shifted my thinking a bit. I'm less focused on whether circulating supply was inflated and more focused on whether Orchard remained fully collateralized. Those aren't necessarily the same question.
English
0
0
2
14
𝙲𝚘𝚕𝚒𝚗 𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚜 𝙲𝚛𝚢𝚙𝚝𝚘
𝙲𝚘𝚕𝚒𝚗 𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚜 𝙲𝚛𝚢𝚙𝚝𝚘@ColinTCrypto·
@matty_charts You’re being too rigid in your logic. Read this and consider the game theory:
Haseeb ＞|＜@hosseeb

There's a lot of confusion about the recently patched Zcash bug. Here's how to actually understand it. If the bug had been exploited before the patch (very unlikely it was), it would have looked like the shielded pool getting drained. Whoever minted the counterfeit shielded ZEC would want to sell fast, before anyone else found the same bug. And remember, the market for ZEC is almost entirely transparent ZEC, not shielded. You can't dump freshly minted shielded ZEC on Binance or Coinbase without unshielding it first. The losers in that scenario are shielded holders who sit still. The transparent portion of Zcash is fully visible, so it's trivial to enforce that transparent ZEC never exceeds max supply. If you try to unshield more than the cap, you'll get stopped at the door. So if you hold transparent ZEC (anyone trading, on an exchange, or doing price discovery on ZEC) there's no marginal effect on you. The loss falls entirely on shielded holders. The team's next step is a new turnstile and a fresh shielded pool in the coming upgrade, which will confirm the shielded pool was not inflated. Think of it as taking headcount at the end of the field trip--that will make sure no extra kids snuck onto the bus. But while AI found this bug, AI will also deliver the fix for the whole category: formal verification. I'm very bullish on this as the path to harden all software across the industry. Formally verified cryptography can't have implementation bugs by construction. Right now AI is surfacing vulnerabilities across all our software--browsers, OSes, and blockchains are no exception. We're in the awkward adolescence where every wart is getting magnified and put on full display. But formally verified software is the only path forward for mission-critical software, and Zcash has put it front and center on their roadmap to deliver. Privacy is too important not to. (Dragonfly holds $ZEC and continues to. I'm personally an investor in ZODL.)

English
1
0
0
49
𝙲𝚘𝚕𝚒𝚗 𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚜 𝙲𝚛𝚢𝚙𝚝𝚘
𝙲𝚘𝚕𝚒𝚗 𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚜 𝙲𝚛𝚢𝚙𝚝𝚘@ColinTCrypto·
I read the panic news on Zcash ($ZEC) two days ago, did some quick research and I decided the price crash wasn't justified. I bought a big chunk of ZEC at $316. Price is now $418 and looks like it will go considerably higher. My target is around $486-$527 (pictured with gray rectangle). Why didn't I think the price crash was justified? • Zcash’s built-in "turnstile" mechanism verified no additional supply was created. • Bug was fixed and yet people were panicing *after* disclosure. Made no sense. • Protocol is MORE secure than before-- not less. • Furthermore, from a general news standpoint, I have observed that negative news, if not borne out in lasting technical failure, is almost always quickly rebounded from-- within days usually. Note that I will not be holding ZEC (or any altcoin) long-term right now due to the fact that we are in a crypto *bear* market. As such, it's just a short term trade for me. I'll likely sell within the next few weeks/month as BTC rallies in the short term, dragging alts up with it, as BTC often does.
𝙲𝚘𝚕𝚒𝚗 𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚜 𝙲𝚛𝚢𝚙𝚝𝚘 tweet media
English
7
4
125
19.4K
Matthew Brienen
Matthew Brienen@matty_charts·
@cryptobaikan @CryptoCharged Already had been taking profits well up to this point, just made additional reductions as floating fundamental risk is present. My bad for laying out my case 😂
English
1
0
1
118
Matthew Brienen
Matthew Brienen@matty_charts·
1/9 I've been one of the louder $ZEC bulls for years. Most of my @CryptoCharged team built positions under $50 alongside me. We've sat through privacy-ban narratives, exchange delistings, regulatory pressure, and years of people calling Zcash dead. I've now made additional reductions to my position. Not because I think inflation happened. Because I can't prove it didn't.
English
23
12
77
13.7K
Matthew Brienen
Matthew Brienen@matty_charts·
@cryptogeek101 Ironwood may answer whether unsupported claims existed. It doesn't automatically answer who bore the cost if they did.
English
1
0
0
23
𝕏 P🤓LL
𝕏 P🤓LL@cryptogeek101·
@matty_charts you're wrong, this will eliminate the possibility of the mint. Once we find out if there was an actual mint or not. After that we'll know how high the price of zec will be. If mint, it could trade in dollars, if there was no mint $10,000 min
English
1
0
0
103
Matthew Brienen
Matthew Brienen@matty_charts·
*Laughs in libertarian, privacy advocate, and long time $ZEC holder* I’ve spent years studying, defending, and investing in ZEC because I genuinely believe privacy matters and because I appreciated the technology and monetary model behind it. The issue many maxis are missing is that Ironwood doesn’t make potential counterfeit claims disappear. It simply accelerates reconciliation. If the Orchard bug was exploited, someone ultimately absorbs that discrepancy. The common response is that dormant balances or lost funds will cover the gap. Maybe. But the entire reason we’re having this discussion is that there is no way to prove that inside a shielded environment. I still appreciate the technology. I still appreciate the mission. But pretending this hasn’t damaged one of the core assumptions behind the investment thesis, at least in the short term, isn’t analysis.
deepcandles 🛡@deepcandles

lmao you never understood Zcash.

English
4
0
13
5.7K
Matthew Brienen
Matthew Brienen@matty_charts·
@Qomolangma406 @VeggsNBacon @CryptoCharged Right, but that's exactly why people are focused on Orchard's internal solvency rather than the 21M cap. Turnstiles can preserve the count while still leaving open the question of whether every claim on that count is backed.
English
0
0
0
65
Matthew Brienen
Matthew Brienen@matty_charts·
“Even if there was a small exploit in the Orchard Pool, lost funds and dormant addresses will cover the difference.” That still implies dilution of legitimate Orchard claims. How do we know those funds are actually lost if they’re sitting in a ✨shielded pool✨? Since when is it acceptable for dormant property to absorb the cost of a protocol failure? 🙃 Ironwood may ultimately prove 1:1 redemption and no inflation occurred. I genuinely hope it does. But if the defense is “lost coins will eat the discrepancy,” then we’re no longer debating cryptography. We’re debating whether dormant property rights still exist.
English
0
0
0
43
Julian 🇺🇦
Julian 🇺🇦@penguinj42·
@matty_charts If lost funds cover an exploited amount, essentially it doesn't matter if it was exploited. The remaining risk to the protocol is proportionate to the remaining funds in Orchard. Right now, the threat is existential. The moment most funds migrate, it becomes minute.
English
1
0
0
114
deepcandles 🛡
deepcandles 🛡@deepcandles·
@matty_charts you said there is inflation, inflation cannot happen by design. If there is a bug that was exploited, then it is easy to find out. The leftover notes are the proof, people can share the viewing key as proof.
English
2
0
0
29
Matthew Brienen
Matthew Brienen@matty_charts·
@deepcandles @robustus “Go check out someone’s retweets” doesn’t tell me anything. What specifically have I stated that isn’t objectively true?
English
1
0
1
38
deepcandles 🛡
deepcandles 🛡@deepcandles·
You've never understood Zcash and how it works. Just read @robustus tweets!
Matthew Brienen@matty_charts

*Laughs in libertarian, privacy advocate, and long time $ZEC holder* I’ve spent years studying, defending, and investing in ZEC because I genuinely believe privacy matters and because I appreciated the technology and monetary model behind it. The issue many maxis are missing is that Ironwood doesn’t make potential counterfeit claims disappear. It simply accelerates reconciliation. If the Orchard bug was exploited, someone ultimately absorbs that discrepancy. The common response is that dormant balances or lost funds will cover the gap. Maybe. But the entire reason we’re having this discussion is that there is no way to prove that inside a shielded environment. I still appreciate the technology. I still appreciate the mission. But pretending this hasn’t damaged one of the core assumptions behind the investment thesis, at least in the short term, isn’t analysis.

English
1
0
10
650

Keşfet

@hosseeb @cryptobaikan @CryptoCharged @cryptogeek101 @Qomolangma406 @VeggsNBacon @elonmusk @BarackObama