produmanni (@produmanniXBT) - Twitter Profili | Zamantika Mersobahis Locabet

Sabitlenmiş Tweet

produmanni@produmanniXBT·6d

99% IGNORE THIS, AND THEY’RE DUMB! HOW TO GET $10,000 IN OPERATING CAPITAL IN ONE TRADE. Prop‑challenges on @VestExchange demand 10% profit on the provided deposit. The loss threshold is 6%, daily drawdown 4%. With a risk‑to‑reward (RR) of 2.8–3, you can close the challenge in a single trade within the rules of Vest Market. Promo code MANNI20 gives you 20% off any challenge. A $10,000 prop‑account costs $88. So here’s the drill: 1. Sign up on Vest Market [trade.vestmarkets.com/join/XATVE]. 2. Buy the challenge for $88 (less than the typical stop‑loss on many people’s orders). 3. Open a short from any level above $77,000. Stop‑loss at $79,380, take‑profit at $70,300. 4. Leave it alone. Let the market (or Trump) do the talking. If it hits the target, you instantly get $10,000 to trade, keeping 90% of the profits. 1% of that is $100, which fully covers the initial risk. If it stops out, you just take a normal loss. The kind you already accept when you pay fees. *Vest Market is an RWA perp DEX, top‑30 by volume, with a proper funding round backed by people from BlackRock. Fine, I won’t keep selling it. You’ll ignore it anyway, right? If this isn’t a solid RR, I don’t know what fucking RR is → @VestExchange.

English

0

1

224

produmanni@produmanniXBT·1d

okay, @waleswoosh will this revive @pingopond?

English

0

2

23

produmanni@produmanniXBT·5d

Trading plan update | $BTC Judging by the affiliate platform metrics, nobody jumped into the prop challenge idea. No surprise. I’ll point back to that later. The plan still stands for now, even though price action has closed below $77,000. More on that in a second. The micro-FVG I marked in the $77,000 - $76,900 range did provide counterflow volume on LTF. But there was no inversion, so it’s too early to call a formed 1D VC. Today matters because of the close. The moving average I mentioned earlier is now sitting around $76,500, and price is basically retesting it right now. A break and close below it would strengthen the bears. A close back above it could mean buyers still have the upper hand. My pain levels are in the $82,000 - $84,000 zone. My average entry is around $76,500. That’s the level that matters. If price keeps moving down and holds below it, the road to $70,000 is open.

English

0

2

70

produmanni@produmanniXBT·6d

As long as the price remains above $77,000, entering the trade is still a good idea. Only on @VestExchange.

produmanni@produmanniXBT

99% IGNORE THIS, AND THEY’RE DUMB! HOW TO GET $10,000 IN OPERATING CAPITAL IN ONE TRADE. Prop‑challenges on @VestExchange demand 10% profit on the provided deposit. The loss threshold is 6%, daily drawdown 4%. With a risk‑to‑reward (RR) of 2.8–3, you can close the challenge in a single trade within the rules of Vest Market. Promo code MANNI20 gives you 20% off any challenge. A $10,000 prop‑account costs $88. So here’s the drill: 1. Sign up on Vest Market [trade.vestmarkets.com/join/XATVE]. 2. Buy the challenge for $88 (less than the typical stop‑loss on many people’s orders). 3. Open a short from any level above $77,000. Stop‑loss at $79,380, take‑profit at $70,300. 4. Leave it alone. Let the market (or Trump) do the talking. If it hits the target, you instantly get $10,000 to trade, keeping 90% of the profits. 1% of that is $100, which fully covers the initial risk. If it stops out, you just take a normal loss. The kind you already accept when you pay fees. *Vest Market is an RWA perp DEX, top‑30 by volume, with a proper funding round backed by people from BlackRock. Fine, I won’t keep selling it. You’ll ignore it anyway, right? If this isn’t a solid RR, I don’t know what fucking RR is → @VestExchange.

English

0

2

39

produmanni@produmanniXBT·6d

It's not too late

produmanni@produmanniXBT

99% IGNORE THIS, AND THEY’RE DUMB! HOW TO GET $10,000 IN OPERATING CAPITAL IN ONE TRADE. Prop‑challenges on @VestExchange demand 10% profit on the provided deposit. The loss threshold is 6%, daily drawdown 4%. With a risk‑to‑reward (RR) of 2.8–3, you can close the challenge in a single trade within the rules of Vest Market. Promo code MANNI20 gives you 20% off any challenge. A $10,000 prop‑account costs $88. So here’s the drill: 1. Sign up on Vest Market [trade.vestmarkets.com/join/XATVE]. 2. Buy the challenge for $88 (less than the typical stop‑loss on many people’s orders). 3. Open a short from any level above $77,000. Stop‑loss at $79,380, take‑profit at $70,300. 4. Leave it alone. Let the market (or Trump) do the talking. If it hits the target, you instantly get $10,000 to trade, keeping 90% of the profits. 1% of that is $100, which fully covers the initial risk. If it stops out, you just take a normal loss. The kind you already accept when you pay fees. *Vest Market is an RWA perp DEX, top‑30 by volume, with a proper funding round backed by people from BlackRock. Fine, I won’t keep selling it. You’ll ignore it anyway, right? If this isn’t a solid RR, I don’t know what fucking RR is → @VestExchange.

English

0

1

31

produmanni@produmanniXBT·6d

okay

produmanni@produmanniXBT

99% IGNORE THIS, AND THEY’RE DUMB! HOW TO GET $10,000 IN OPERATING CAPITAL IN ONE TRADE. Prop‑challenges on @VestExchange demand 10% profit on the provided deposit. The loss threshold is 6%, daily drawdown 4%. With a risk‑to‑reward (RR) of 2.8–3, you can close the challenge in a single trade within the rules of Vest Market. Promo code MANNI20 gives you 20% off any challenge. A $10,000 prop‑account costs $88. So here’s the drill: 1. Sign up on Vest Market [trade.vestmarkets.com/join/XATVE]. 2. Buy the challenge for $88 (less than the typical stop‑loss on many people’s orders). 3. Open a short from any level above $77,000. Stop‑loss at $79,380, take‑profit at $70,300. 4. Leave it alone. Let the market (or Trump) do the talking. If it hits the target, you instantly get $10,000 to trade, keeping 90% of the profits. 1% of that is $100, which fully covers the initial risk. If it stops out, you just take a normal loss. The kind you already accept when you pay fees. *Vest Market is an RWA perp DEX, top‑30 by volume, with a proper funding round backed by people from BlackRock. Fine, I won’t keep selling it. You’ll ignore it anyway, right? If this isn’t a solid RR, I don’t know what fucking RR is → @VestExchange.

English

0

1

47

produmanni@produmanniXBT·6d

99% IGNORE THIS, AND THEY’RE DUMB! HOW TO GET $10,000 IN OPERATING CAPITAL IN ONE TRADE. Prop‑challenges on @VestExchange demand 10% profit on the provided deposit. The loss threshold is 6%, daily drawdown 4%. With a risk‑to‑reward (RR) of 2.8–3, you can close the challenge in a single trade within the rules of Vest Market. Promo code MANNI20 gives you 20% off any challenge. A $10,000 prop‑account costs $88. So here’s the drill: 1. Sign up on Vest Market [trade.vestmarkets.com/join/XATVE]. 2. Buy the challenge for $88 (less than the typical stop‑loss on many people’s orders). 3. Open a short from any level above $77,000. Stop‑loss at $79,380, take‑profit at $70,300. 4. Leave it alone. Let the market (or Trump) do the talking. If it hits the target, you instantly get $10,000 to trade, keeping 90% of the profits. 1% of that is $100, which fully covers the initial risk. If it stops out, you just take a normal loss. The kind you already accept when you pay fees. *Vest Market is an RWA perp DEX, top‑30 by volume, with a proper funding round backed by people from BlackRock. Fine, I won’t keep selling it. You’ll ignore it anyway, right? If this isn’t a solid RR, I don’t know what fucking RR is → @VestExchange.

English

0

1

3

133

produmanni@produmanniXBT·6d

$BTC Could BTC drop 44% in two weeks? BTC is ripe | A very important, detailed weekly review I’ll say it up front: there’s an RDRB price action element here, a block formed by a long wick, with the next candle fully swallowing it. Some people treat RDRB as a magnet zone, others as support or resistance. I don’t take it seriously. Plain English: it’s just a retest proving one side is still in control. By definition, it assumes the incoming volume already did its job by fully absorbing the wick, and the block itself implies neither inefficiency nor liquidity buildup. The only real use case for RDRB is post-fact interpretation of some reaction, if nothing else is on the chart. So why the intro? The last 4 weeks built an impulse that includes a weekly FVG and 2 RDRBs. On top of that, month-end in a few days can also print a monthly RDRB. After this review, I’ll strip the RDRBs off the chart. I’ll only count them if a reaction actually shows up. Until then, the only valid price action element inside the impulse is the FVG between $70,520 and $69,300. Below that sits a cascade of weekly liquidity all the way down to $59,000. Until a daily VC comes in, the trend is still classified as bullish by the book. Here’s the important part: to fully confirm continuation of the downside, you need a cancellation through the 1W VC, and that takes time. Sometimes, if there’s an X-1 liquidity trigger before the X timeframe element, an X-2 VC is enough to confirm the drop. That’s the case here too. The target was the monthly FVG at $79,388 - $83,755. The lower boundary was tested last week, and all of it came with short liquidations. In this case, a 1D VC can genuinely validate the whole three-month consolidation thesis, and over time it can grow into a 1W VC. That’s the bet. Now the local picture. The four-week impulse I mentioned at the start is packing a fat daily liquidity patch inside it. That can easily be the setup for an instant sweep of everything longs have stacked here. In cycle terms, there should still be at least one more strong impulse down, like the move from June 6 to June 18, 2022. Back then it was -44% in two weeks. Geopolitics prepared the soil, didn’t it? Wet dreams: the VC may show up faster than expected. On some exchanges, a mini daily FVG has formed in the $77,000 - $76,900 zone. Its inversion can serve as the 1D VC. The inversion of the weekly FVG mentioned above can serve as the 1W VC. Now the main point! I reran the cycle timing through a stack of mathematical models down to the one-day level. The cycle bottom window is set between September 4 and October 21. The take that price action is "rushing" no longer makes sense. Worse, if you line it up with the wave count from the last bear cycle, we’re already late :) Like I said, there’s at least one strong impulsive move down still ahead, plus another consolidation phase. Any extra time or delay can be absorbed by the combination of the two, but their shape matters less than the fact that they’re coming whether anyone likes it or not.

English

0

4

130

produmanni@produmanniXBT·26 Nis

NFTs are going up in price. Months ago, in this post [t.me/derivativeflow…], I overlaid the NFT market on top of the main BTC plan. The setup didn’t look pretty, but I flagged upside potential specifically for the @BoredApeYC ecosystem. What’s happened in recent days is exactly that: the apes flipped 10 $ETH, dragged the sub‑collections along, and took most of the broader market with them. At the macro level, it doesn’t change much. It’s just an exit‑pump in the usual sense, but this time inside the NFT bubble it’s an over‑hyped, half‑dead wheel spinning in slow motion. Markets move on liquidity, and the entire crypto space will be draining it into the ground through the rest of this year. Full‑blown risk‑off, and NFTs will feel it extra hard. Still, I’ll come back to NFTs at the end of the year, under a completely different narrative.

English

4

0

1

73

produmanni@produmanniXBT·26 Nis

Gm What's going on with the NFT market? What news have I missed? Hey, @grok, why are ETH NFT collections growing?

English

3

0

2

86

produmanni@produmanniXBT·25 Nis

$BTC I think it’s obvious this liquidity cascade is built for a reason. In theory, it’s acceleration toward the five‑candle daily fractal at $79,423, which just so happens to be the trigger at the lower edge of the weekly and monthly FVG. On the daily timeframe, the downside liquidity cascade is longer but still strong. It’s pointless to pretend this whole near‑three‑month formation is “just noise.” It’s domino after domino, nothing else. And the key point is that every new one pushes the market closer to total collapse. By the book, each new domino also brings in more retail.

English

0

1

58

produmanni@produmanniXBT·24 Nis

@penguinonaptos @Aptos 🐧

QME

0

47

produmanni retweetledi

Penguin Chronicles@penguinonaptos·24 Nis

🐧 Migration to ETH. Only NFTs that are not listed. Goodbye, @Aptos!

English

2

1

11

362

produmanni@produmanniXBT·22 Nis

DAMN PEOPLE ARE TOO LAZY RIGHT NOW TO READ THE SECOND HALF OF THIS POST. AND THAT’S THE PART THAT WOULD ACTUALLY IMPROVE THEIR TRADING. First the barn burns, now the house is on fire. What’s next? $BTC My pain threshold sits around $82,000 - $83,000. That’s where positions get closed whether I like it or not. Do we get there? Maybe. Do we roll over to $50,000 after? Yes. Right now price is testing the moving level that defines the narrative. As long as it holds above, buyers have control. Lose it, and it’s a sell. We’ve seen this before in past cycles. Acceptance above that level only happened near the bottom, or in the last 1-2 months of the downtrend. Right now we’re nowhere near either. Not in price, not in time. In this phase of the cycle, I made the call to trade mostly on prop capital. Quick context. Prop accounts are funded accounts you get after passing a challenge. Not your money, but your risk rules. I looked into expanding platforms recently. Didn’t bother in the end. I stick with @VestExchange. Basically a standard perp DEX, sits around top-35 by volume, @DecibelTrade is somewhere nearby too (~38). The difference is the prop infrastructure, and there’s no noise around it. This is a large institutional RWA project, with roots tied into BlackRock and others. Ref: XATVE. 20% off all challenges, which actually makes the pricing competitive. Code MANNI20 if you’re already signed up. Don’t be lazy, look into it. $50 is nothing. Pass the challenge, you get a $5,000 account. One stop-loss at 1% risk is $50. A clean 2:1 trade already doubles that. That’s how the math shifts.

English

3

1

4

176

produmanni@produmanniXBT·23 Nis

Example of why you have to account for X-1 timeframe elements. Or why, once price reaches the X-1 element, you should move the trade to breakeven. *The setup hasn’t played out yet, and that doesn’t matter. Backtest will prove the logic either way. The point is the structure. $ETH validated a VC after sweeping the 1D fractal low through a newly formed 4H FVG. That put the move on course toward the next daily element. But price action failed to reach the marked level, turned instead after interacting with the 4H FVG, formed a 4H VC, and targeted back to the level where the move started. That’s how X-1 timeframe elements can flip the order flow of timeframe X. In this setup, you can point to a 1D RB, with its lower edge touched by the wick. In theory, that can be the reason for the reversal. But I’m not trying to hand you an entry signal. I’m pointing at a possible event and the value of knowing the structure. Besides, statistically, far more volume could come out of the 4H FVG than out of the 1D RB.

produmanni@produmanniXBT

IMPORTANT: WHY SHORTING BTC RIGHT NOW TAKES YOUR MONEY INSTEAD OF MAKING IT, BUT... Earlier, in the post about VC, I pointed out that the key is the combo of two timeframes - X (the main TF) and X-1 (one level lower). Simple version. X is always your POI. X-1 is where you validate incoming volume. That’s your answer to two basic questions: where did the volume come from, and where is it likely going. But two more things matter just as much - narrative (trend) and order flow. They’re tied together. When you map where volume came from and where it’s headed, you’re building the narrative from point A to point B. Price doesn’t move in clean 1-2 candle impulses. Volatility is built through local refuels and distribution. And the market is fractal. Every move is just a piece of a bigger structure. So X is always X-1 for a higher formation. That’s how the narrative stacks. If you don’t want to piss into the wind, figure out which way it’s blowing. That’s where the third timeframe comes in - X+1. The narrative is defined by the last VC on the higher timeframe relative to your POI. Example. Price taps a 4H FVG, buyers step in with a 1H VC. That sets the upside target at the first 4H element. Now check the last VC on 1D. If it came from buyers, your 4H move is trend-aligned. If not, you’re trading against the flow. ⤿ THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE CURRENT $BTC SHORT We’ve got a 1W FVG from buyers at $69,300 - $70,520. That acts as a VC coming out of a monthly element. That flips the narrative to the buy side. The valid VC TF here is 1D. Which means shorts taken off a 4H VC are countertrend. I factored that risk in when opening positions. Still, volume confirmation isn’t limited to FVG or SNR. There are other layers - cycle timing, broader trend, all of it matters. In a cleaner setup, you’d just trade with buyers. That’s what the system says. But with the current fundamentals, it’s either stay out, or take the trade and accept you’re standing in the wind, wearing brand new shoes.

English

0

1

63

produmanni@produmanniXBT·23 Nis

IMPORTANT: WHY SHORTING BTC RIGHT NOW TAKES YOUR MONEY INSTEAD OF MAKING IT, BUT... Earlier, in the post about VC, I pointed out that the key is the combo of two timeframes - X (the main TF) and X-1 (one level lower). Simple version. X is always your POI. X-1 is where you validate incoming volume. That’s your answer to two basic questions: where did the volume come from, and where is it likely going. But two more things matter just as much - narrative (trend) and order flow. They’re tied together. When you map where volume came from and where it’s headed, you’re building the narrative from point A to point B. Price doesn’t move in clean 1-2 candle impulses. Volatility is built through local refuels and distribution. And the market is fractal. Every move is just a piece of a bigger structure. So X is always X-1 for a higher formation. That’s how the narrative stacks. If you don’t want to piss into the wind, figure out which way it’s blowing. That’s where the third timeframe comes in - X+1. The narrative is defined by the last VC on the higher timeframe relative to your POI. Example. Price taps a 4H FVG, buyers step in with a 1H VC. That sets the upside target at the first 4H element. Now check the last VC on 1D. If it came from buyers, your 4H move is trend-aligned. If not, you’re trading against the flow. ⤿ THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE CURRENT $BTC SHORT We’ve got a 1W FVG from buyers at $69,300 - $70,520. That acts as a VC coming out of a monthly element. That flips the narrative to the buy side. The valid VC TF here is 1D. Which means shorts taken off a 4H VC are countertrend. I factored that risk in when opening positions. Still, volume confirmation isn’t limited to FVG or SNR. There are other layers - cycle timing, broader trend, all of it matters. In a cleaner setup, you’d just trade with buyers. That’s what the system says. But with the current fundamentals, it’s either stay out, or take the trade and accept you’re standing in the wind, wearing brand new shoes.

English

0

1

114

produmanni@produmanniXBT·22 Nis

If by life you were deceived, Don't be dismal, don't be wild! In the day of grief, be mild. Merry days will come, believe. Heart is living in tomorrow; Present is dejected here; In a moment, passes sorrow; That which passes will be dear.

PingoPond | paused@PingoPond

PingoPond operations have been suspended, and resumption remains uncertain. It was a long journey spanning over 18 months. We scaled from zero to one of the most active projects in the @Aptos ecosystem, relying solely on our own efforts and resources. Along the way, we faced numerous obstacles and outright setbacks. We committed to the Aptos Foundation Accelerator program and were the sole project to receive not only attention but support. In the end, we were denied everything. We survived that blow, shifted our strategy, and moved to a white-label model. We achieved our goals — the partner project became almost entirely dependent on PingoPond for community engagement infrastructure. The white-label model has its advantages, but carries certain risks. Internal issues within the partner project left us without the necessary resources to continue. Therefore, @PingoPond is suspending operations. We're proud of what we've built. We're open to any commercial proposals, including the sale of our solutions.

English

0

1

2

222

produmanni@produmanniXBT·22 Nis

@PingoPond @Aptos That was interesting.

English

0

2

66

produmanni retweetledi

PingoPond | paused@PingoPond·22 Nis

PingoPond operations have been suspended, and resumption remains uncertain. It was a long journey spanning over 18 months. We scaled from zero to one of the most active projects in the @Aptos ecosystem, relying solely on our own efforts and resources. Along the way, we faced numerous obstacles and outright setbacks. We committed to the Aptos Foundation Accelerator program and were the sole project to receive not only attention but support. In the end, we were denied everything. We survived that blow, shifted our strategy, and moved to a white-label model. We achieved our goals — the partner project became almost entirely dependent on PingoPond for community engagement infrastructure. The white-label model has its advantages, but carries certain risks. Internal issues within the partner project left us without the necessary resources to continue. Therefore, @PingoPond is suspending operations. We're proud of what we've built. We're open to any commercial proposals, including the sale of our solutions.

English

5

3

12

988

produmanni

Keşfet