FEiKU

trade[XYZ] launched its first market on Hyperliquid 381 days ago. Today, we are joining forces with ICE, parent company of the New York Stock Exchange, to bring perpetual futures on Hyperliquid to U.S. regulated markets. I don’t usually write long posts, but today merits reflection. For years, builders across this industry have worked to show that open, onchain markets could support price discovery, manage risk, and withstand stress to the standards of traditional market infrastructure, all while staying open when and where those markets aren’t. Our achievements stand on the shoulders of those builders. And today, the company that owns the New York Stock Exchange has chosen to build upon the work of every developer, trader, market maker, and user who took a chance on us and our markets. We share this moment with all of you. Markets are shaped by their participants. A new generation of investors trades from their phones, across asset classes, at any hour of any day. Until Hyperliquid, the right infrastructure for those markets didn’t exist. Building these markets was hard. It took novel approaches to pricing, funding, and risk, refined with real capital at stake, in markets that don’t close. It also meant earning the trust of the people trading on them. We’re honored that the community recognized that effort and responded in kind. That trust is what allowed us to grow our volumes to a ~$1 trillion annualized run rate in just over a year, to help pioneer new instruments like pre-IPO perps, and to earn the confidence of storied institutions like S&P Dow Jones Indices. That’s why ICE has chosen trade[XYZ] as its exclusive partner to bring 24/7 perps to the U.S. Shifts in technology have pushed markets toward greater transparency, better price discovery, and broader access: from the coffee house to the curb exchange, ticker tape to the telephone, the trading floor to digital exchanges. ICE helped write that last chapter. In 1997, Jeff Sprecher bought a small power-trading technology business for $1. ICE launched as an electronic energy marketplace in 2000, helped digitize major commodity markets, and acquired the NYSE in 2013. It has grown exponentially because of this appetite for innovation. That’s the partner we wanted: a partner that looks forward and embraces progress. Americans deserve access to the most innovative markets in the world, and the protections of U.S. regulation. With trade[XYZ] and ICE, subject to regulatory approvals, they’ll have both. The difference isn’t just access. Perps don’t expire, so traders never have to roll positions, and liquidity concentrates in a single deep market for each asset. Cross-margining enhances capital efficiency by letting one pool of collateral back positions across stocks, commodities, and crypto. Underpinning it all are atomic clearing and settlement, real-time risk management that enables continuous markets, and universally applied rules that anyone can verify. This is the next chapter we’ll write together. My responsibility, our responsibility, is to now build markets worthy of the confidence our partners and our users have placed in us. Our commitments will not waver: to fair and transparent markets, to diverse markets, to low costs of execution, and above all, to market integrity. All of this in pursuit of one thing: A universal exchange, open around the clock, coming to the United States. We’re proud to have deployed more than 100 markets on trade[XYZ]. But measured against the opportunity ahead, we’ve barely started. There is an enormous universe of assets we haven’t reached, alongside things people want to trade that have no established market at all. Wherever there is demand to trade an asset, we want trade[XYZ] to be where its price is discovered. Global stocks, commodities, bonds, pre-IPO companies, compute, new indices, digital assets, interest rates, equity baskets, volatility products, alt assets… Anything. Anytime. Anywhere. Ultimately, everything you own should work with everything you trade. Picture a headline breaking on Saturday night. You should be able to post tokenized shares as collateral, hedge your portfolio with an index perp, add exposure to oil, and take a view on a company that has not yet gone public. All in one account, all on one risk engine, before any traditional market opens. trade[XYZ] and Hyperliquid were built for this. I hope someone opens their first investment account years from now to find that trivial, and to wonder why their predecessors needed so many separate financial relationships. Getting there will take liquidity, reliability, trust, and prices people have reason to believe. It will take years. I’m prepared to spend them. Finally, a few thank yous. First to the XYZ team: For the tireless nights and for committing to this vision before it was obvious. To Jeff Sprecher and ICE, with special thanks to Michael Blaugrund and Trabue Bland who championed us throughout: You’re a world-class, technology-embracing team that proves innovation and scale are in fact not at odds. To Stan Druckenmiller: For your partnership and helping us turn the next page. To Hyperliquid Labs: For being the best partners we could ask for. You set an impossible standard, one we continually strive to meet. @chameleon_jeff, @iliensinc, @xulian_hl And most importantly, to our users: You traded these markets when no one thought it mattered. Guess what? It did.

most ppl would make more money and have way fewer headaches if they just took a longer view. but everything around us is pushing the other way. fast, fast, fast, rotate, don't miss it what being in a rush actually does, at least for me, is make me take more decisions. and every decision is one more chance to be wrong. and with the number of tokens coming out now and how easy it is to buy them, the surface area for that just keeps growing how i've tried to handle it, with mixed results so far this cycle: core spot holdings that i refuse to touch. i don't even really think about them until conditions i set ahead of time get met. that's the anchor of the port then a much smaller active book, whatever fits your risk, somewhere between zero and 20% of the port, for rotations, trades, the thing trending on the timeline. that's where the itch goes if i notice myself whittling the active book down, that's my signal. park it back in the main bag if it's working and i think it keeps going, or in the second or third best idea. then scale the active side way back. keep 5% or so live if i genuinely have to be in and out of stuff, and leave it there none of this is complicated. the hard part is remembering to stick with the plan when times get good.

I wanted to write a post this morning offering some honest thoughts on the whole "Pump fun is the enemy" discourse I've been seeing across the timeline. As someone who has been here full-time since late 2020, this isn't my first rodeo when it comes to watching CT collectively turn against the very infrastructure that defined a previous market cycle. In fact, I'd argue this is an almost predictable phenomenon that occurs at every major paradigm shift in crypto, particularly when we transition away from a dominant speculative asset class and towards whatever comes next. The platform that facilitated the previous meta inevitably becomes the focal point of frustration when the economics underpinning that meta begin to deteriorate. Most of you probably haven't been around long enough to remember, but we witnessed an almost identical situation with OpenSea during the transition away from NFTs in 2022–23. At that point, there was virtually nothing OpenSea could have done to satiate its existing user base. The NFT boom that it had largely facilitated was over, liquidity was evaporating, and the core participants who had previously made substantial amounts of money trading NFTs were suddenly finding it increasingly difficult to generate returns. Predictably, people started to get pissed off. OpenSea was suddenly extractive. OpenSea wasn't innovating. OpenSea wasn't doing enough for its users. OpenSea was responsible for the deterioration of the very market it had helped popularise. And while there were certainly legitimate criticisms to be made regarding its business model the broader reality was that NFTs were simply no longer the dominant speculative asset class. With the benefit of hindsight, it's difficult to imagine any realistic set of decisions OpenSea could have made that would have fundamentally reversed that trajectory. The writing was already on the wall. Yet, to this day, you'll still encounter people who genuinely believe OpenSea somehow "killed NFTs". Which, to me, is an absurd interpretation of how speculative markets function. No emerging asset class gets to enjoy an indefinite period of extraordinary returns, particularly once the opportunities that initially made it attractive become widely understood, commoditised and increasingly competitive. And I believe we're now witnessing an almost identical phenomenon with pump fun. Call it the OpenSea-ification of the trenches. We're experiencing the gradual exhaustion of capital-M memecoins as the de facto speculative asset class of this cycle, and the platform most closely associated with their proliferation has become the natural target for everyone's frustration. The uncomfortable reality is that most people, outside of a relatively small subset of sophisticated participants, simply aren't making meaningful money trading memes anymore. There are numerous reasons for this, but without getting lost in the weeds, the underlying dynamics are relatively straightforward. Liquidity is considerably more fragmented, the number of competing tokens and narratives has expanded dramatically, and the capital required to sustain the valuations we witnessed during the height of the mania simply isn't circulating through the market in the same way. At the same time, the average participant is competing against an increasingly sophisticated group of traders who have spent years refining their strategies, infrastructure and understanding of the trenches. This is an important point that I don't think gets nearly enough attention. Every speculative asset class eventually becomes a more solved game. The inefficiencies that initially created extraordinary opportunities are gradually arbitraged away. As more participants figure out how to play the game, the edge that once existed begins to disappear, and making money becomes increasingly difficult for the average trader. Consequently, the risk/reward profile deteriorates for the average participant. What was once an environment where relatively unsophisticated traders could generate extraordinary returns becomes one where those same participants are effectively competing against professionals. This isn't a unique failure of memecoins. It's how financial markets function. It happened with NFTs, and it's happening with memes. Which brings me to what I consider the fundamental misconception underpinning much of the current anti-pump discourse. There's this persistent belief that if only pump fun had implemented different incentives, distributed fees differently, worked with different KOLs, or simply never existed in the first place, we'd somehow be living in a memecoin utopia where everyone continued making money indefinitely. I find that argument deeply unconvincing. For one, it assumes pump fun exists in a vacuum, rather than within an intensely competitive market where alternative platforms would inevitably emerge to service the same underlying demand. Remove pump fun from the equation, and you don't magically remove the economic incentives that gave rise to it. You simply create an opportunity for another platform to occupy the same position. More importantly, it assumes that the structural deterioration in memecoin profitability is primarily a consequence of platform-level decisions rather than the natural maturation and saturation of the asset class itself. I don't believe that's the case. And to be clear, none of this is intended as an unconditional defence of pump fun. There are absolutely decisions worth criticising. But IMO the distinction I think people are missing is that... A platform can make suboptimal decisions without being responsible for the structural decline of the market it operates within. Even if pump fun had executed perfectly, two fundamental realities would remain unchanged. First, crypto has largely failed to attract sufficient new capital and participants to sustain the increasingly large speculative ecosystems we've built across successive cycles. Second, memecoin trading has become an increasingly competitive activity, where the average participant is now competing against a much more sophisticated and experienced subset of the market. Neither of these problems disappears because pump fun changes its fee structure or starts working with different influencers. And neither would disappear if pump fun ceased to exist tomorrow. Simply put, people are looking for a platform-level solution to what is fundamentally a market-level problem. I think that's the real source of the disconnect. When an asset class stops generating the returns people have become accustomed to, it's psychologically much easier to identify a villain than to accept that the opportunity itself has fundamentally changed. OpenSea became that villain for NFTs. Pump fun is becoming that villain for memecoins. And I suspect that when the next dominant speculative asset class eventually emerges, we'll watch this exact same cycle play out again. None of this means platforms should be immune from criticism or that participants shouldn't demand better incentives, transparency and alignment. They absolutely should. But there's a meaningful difference between holding a company accountable for its decisions and attributing the inevitable maturation of an entire speculative market to that company's existence. Until we start distinguishing between those two things, I think we're going to keep having the wrong conversation. And sure, call me a pump fun shill if you want, but many of you made life-changing gains during peak memecoin mania precisely because pump democratised launches. It's worth acknowledging that, just as it's worth recognising that the decline in liquidity and profitability isn't solely the fault of the launchpad that helped facilitate the boom. Ultimately, I think it's worth asking whether any single platform could have fundamentally changed where we find ourselves today, or whether this was always the natural trajectory of the market. Food for thought.

it should also make u realize that everyone has a worlds leading expert in virtually every domain in their pocket, but most ppl are too lazy to use them, let alone smart enough to ask the right questions. with ai smart ppl get smarter and dumb ppl get dumber. k-shaped economy.

Official Statement | Security Incident Update TL;DR: No private keys were compromised, unaffected wallets are safe, and all affected users will be fully reimbursed by Bloom. Following our investigation, we have identified the exact attack vector and confirmed the scope of the incident. The attack exploited a third-party module through a complex Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability. No private keys were accessed or compromised, and we have ruled out broader exposure of users' wallets. Incident Overview Affected: 49 wallet addresses belonging to 9 users. • Total losses: Approximately 9,408 SOL ($947,000). • Root cause: Exploited third-party module enabling an RCE vulnerability. • Refunds: Bloom will fully reimburse 100% of the stolen funds directly to secure wallets designated by the affected users. • We are also working to trace the stolen funds, explore recovery and freezing options, and identify the attacker. Our team has been developing software since 2018 and operating in crypto since 2021. We are an established team, committed to building for the long term and protecting the trust of our users. Security threats are an unfortunate reality of this industry, even with extensive precautions in place. Our commitment to user safety, transparency, and business continuity remains unchanged. The Bloom Team

Detailed BTC Top-Down Overview (notes in images) 1W

If you are mid to long term bullish, but derisking short term You are expressing the opinion that you will beat the market twice in the short term First time that you will derisk high enough and second time you will be able to buy back in low enough That's two additional short term trades you need to nail on top of your long term view

OVERTRADING October 10, 2025 i had what would become the single biggest one-day loss of my career i lost eight figures in minutes due to systemic failures on the biggest CEXs, and to this day, no one has taken accountability for what happened my losses made headlines and became one of the biggest stories to come out of that day but what many people don't know is what happened in the weeks and months that followed i lost several million more and i did it by making one of the biggest mistakes traders like me tend to make: OVERTRADING in hindsight, i would have been far better off shutting everything down for the next few months or even quarters i probably would have become a much better trader if i had simply stayed away from the computer for at least six months but a part of me was desperate for action a part of me wanted to make it all back a part of me wanted to prove that i still had what it takes and that i would get back on my feet i wanted to 'work' and sitting back, doing nothing, and staying away from the computer for a prolonged period didn't feel like work except that, for a trader, being AFK can sometimes be the most important work you do one of the biggest mistakes i made — and that many traders make — is assuming that skill, experience, and process are enough to consistently outperform the market they aren't believe it or not, successful trading is often a combination of skill, favorable market conditions, timing, and luck as a Christian, i attribute the 'luck' component to GOD's blessings and favor rather than sheer luck but the underlying principle remains the same: our biggest wins often come from combining a solid process with being in the right place at the right time sometimes, that means catching a single exceptional trade other times, it means being positioned during a streak of opportunities that emerge in quick succession because market conditions are overwhelmingly in your favor for example, you could have been a memecoin god simply by being active in the market during the explosive memecoin era of 2021, which produced $DOGE, $SHIB, $FLOKI, and several other billion-dollar runners many traders made life-changing money during that period but the same sophisticated processes that helped some of us make 7, 8, or even 9 figures during the bull market would have failed miserably in the bear market that followed in 2022 the same principle applies to the 2024–early 2025 era, which produced several multibillion-dollar runners like $WIF, $POPCAT, and $FARTCOIN and then the prolonged dearth of opportunities after $TRUMP leading to 10/10 and the almost one-year period following the point is simple: the edge that makes you money in one market environment won't necessarily make you money in another and one of the most important skills you can develop as a trader is recognizing when your edge is no longer there sometimes, the best trade is no trade at all sometimes, the smartest thing you can do is take a bow, step away, and wait for the next opportunity even if only temporarily it's almost impossible to consistently beat the market over a sufficiently long timeframe but as crypto traders, we have one significant advantage: we don't need to outperform the market every single day, week, or month to generate exceptional returns historically, crypto's bull phases have tended to occupy a disproportionate share of the cycle, with bear phases accounting for a smaller portion using one historical framework, the bull phase averages approximately 1,060 days, or 74% of the cycle, while the bear phase averages around 380 days, or 26% but if your definition of a bull run is narrower — i.e. a period of explosive momentum when $BTC trades above its 200-day moving average and much of the cycle's biggest price action occurs — then the window becomes significantly shorter under that framework, we're talking about approximately 237 days, or around 16% of the cycle these figures are estimates based on particular definitions of market phases, not universal constants but the broader lesson remains: you don't need to trade every market. you need to recognize the windows when your edge is strongest and capitalize on them for the rest of the time, there's nothing wrong with stepping away entirely or trading only with a tiny fraction of your portfolio that you can comfortably afford to lose preserving your capital, your mental clarity, and your ability to recognize the next major opportunity is far more important than forcing trades in unfavorable conditions because the goal isn't to be active all the time the goal is to be positioned when it matters most and to have the discipline to do nothing when it doesn't to conclude, i only wish i had followed this advice myself hopefully, i'll do a better job of applying it going forward, GOD WILLING

People on here always want to hear a singular decisive unchanging view (and a bullish one of course) but that is not really how trading goes. People can do that and hit the jackpot and become heroes but that is more akin to gambling than thoughtful trading. Being a good trader means mapping out different configurations of the future and staying open minded and observing how newsflow and price action coalesce to validate one of those scenarios. Playing the odds and managing risk. I have been fortunate and protecting the money I already have is more important to me than getting a moonshot 20x. In that vein, you shouldn't follow me for clear trading calls that can be copy traded, and if anything I want to fully move away from that. I change my tactical views all the time and it's not feasible to update you all on their evolution. I also feel a genuine sense of responsibility towards others and don't like to leave people hanging. I am here out of my enjoyment of writing and desire to exchange views with sharp people, and I don't have a need to optimize for clout that can someday be used to shill my own coin or whatever, because I will never do that. So instead it's more constructive for me to share insights about the big picture, because those will remain more stable, and maybe something isn't directly tradeable at the moment, but can help give color to the way the next 6-12 months unfolds. My big thesis around "There's Not Enough Money in The World" (see pinned post) was a good example of this, it wasn't a directly tradeable call at the time, but it predicted one of the most important macro dynamics for the year. It is genuinely a complex time because AI is changing everything. There are a lot of different cross currents. We've had the AI capex boom but the rate of change is slowing down, and now we are starting to explore the limits of financing capability as money is becoming tighter everywhere. There is reflexivity here, because as financing for AI capex tightens, sentiment around AI worsens, which further tightens financing, and so on, and so forth. We have the fact that AI is starting to unweave the fabric of the world as we know it, and will structurally increase uncertainty. Usually uncertainty is kryptonite for risk appetite, and increasing uncertainty is bad for asset prices, and decreasing uncertainty is good for asset prices. We also will have a lot of unemployment from AI. It's becoming more likely we see the initial wave of this next year, but the early stages can be bullish, because it won't be enough to meaningfully impact passive flows, but it will weaken economic data enough to potentially nudge the Fed into pivoting to be more dovish. This is combined with the fact that the 3 most hawkish members of the Fed, Logan, Hammack, and Kashkari, are all regional Fed Presidents that will roll off into 2027. So I'm hopeful that early 2027 will lead to better conditions. As the snowballs keeps rolling down the hill, and AI layoffs become significant, this will surely be bearish, since it will impact passive 401k flows which are a key underpinning for the market, it will reduce consumer spending, and lead to asset sales as unemployed people will need to fund living expenses. We are in an environment where asset prices (market caps) are very high relative to flows because they have generally been unidirectional. This has been a super bullish dynamic on the way up, but it cuts both ways. Timing all of these very factors is difficult, they are things that I keep in the back of my mind as I trade around shorter term catalysts and newsflow day to day. It's easier for me to say that conditions in equities will be challenging through the end of the year because I know the following: 1. Anthropic IPO will suck a ton of money out of equities directly, at least $40-50bn, and mostly out of AI stocks specifically. To me this is unavoidable. It doesn't mean I would short into the IPO but it is a major headwind. 2. Fed will likely pause in Oct and hike in Dec, but in any case, there will be no pivot before year end. Liquidity will remain tight. 3. Retail money has shown many signs of being tired, and spread too thin. The price action around the recent Nasdaq ATH reminded me of late October 2025, and this pattern recognition flipped me from bullish to cautious. I wish I had posted about it publicly then (people in my group chats know) but I was still locked out of my X account at the time. 4. Hedge funds have gotten rekt in October (yesterday was one of the worst days for them ever, across classic L/S, quant, and market neutral pods) and they will be reluctant to re-risk into year end, especially classic L/S funds are more likely to book their years and play defence given their incentives (annual returns are the main basis for relative evaluation and bonuses). Pods will also be more conservative because many teams will be closer to their drawdown limits (usually capital cut at -5% and fired at -10%). 5. As bills issuance has been so high in terms of mix, this puts pressure on repo/plumbing. A simple illustration of this dynamic is the following: if you spent a ton of money but had to fully pay off your credit card frequently, you would need to maintain more balance in your checking account to manage the float. This was manageable for most of the year due to the Fed's RMPs but Warsh recently ended it. Repo/plumbing tightens in Dec because banks like to close up their books early ahead of year end. When liquidity in this channel is abundant, the year end factor is irrelevant, it only matters when things are tight, which they likely will be. This happened last year. The main scenario where this is wrong is if we get a decisive resolution to Iran + Anthropic IPO is delayed. All of that said, there will be at least one good tradeable bounce within the next few weeks, this is inevitable. And I hope that on the other side of this, we get resolution on this factors hanging over the market, and we can have strong markets again. The market cannot be roaring all the time. The last few years has really been more of an aberration when you compare it against larger slices of history.

Jensen Huang when asked whether he would rather relive his 20s or be 20 years old today.

Why you shouldn't panic about AI hacks: my full interview with cybersecurity expert @tayvano_ 0:37 how bad is the PHP bug? 2:33 PHP is 70% of the internet 6:59 a private key that was just "4" 9:04 crypto is safer than the internet 15:30 never panic, diversify 17:04 how Cloudflare saved the internet 18:49 Railway hack drained wallets 21:07 Monero & Zcash are most hardened 22:35 Bitcoin's real risk is its culture 27:02 hardware 2FA on everything

There is nothing to worry about. Nothing important is run on PHP or old software—except the water & electrical grid, a few government services like our missile defense systems and a handful of electrified fences at the zoo (for the lions, tigers and cobras).

Websites are files on a computer. When you view a website, you are asking the computer to send you the files, then your browser shows them to you. 70% of the websites you see use PHP to make them interactive. So you can send things to the website too and it can respond. E.g. filling in a comment box and hitting 'post' adds the comment as a row to a spreadsheet. PHP has a flaw in its code that allows anyone to gain control of the computer that has the website on it. The organisation that provides PHP announced the vulnerability before a patch was available, meaning we're in a window where everyone knows about it (including baddies) but the good guys don't have an official solution. Some are just turning off their websites and waiting for the solution. Others are trying to fix it themselves. General chaos and lots of stressed techies across literally the entire planet because this affects the entire internet.

Alpenglow is live on mainnet-beta ⛰️ 🎉 Solana’s new consensus protocol: finality reduced from 12.8 seconds to 150 milliseconds, built by Anza. Why this is important 🧵

Been obsessed with the stock market since I was a teenager. Have traded through the dotcom bubble, the financial crisis and just about every market mania since. But I’ve never seen anything like the skepticism surrounding AI. Not even close. Every time one bubble narrative falls apart a new one takes its place. Rumors become headlines. Misleading data goes viral. Claims that could be debunked with 5 minutes of research get repeated by major media outlets, influential investors and Wall Street analysts. It’s relentless and honestly pretty fascinating to watch. Of course there will be spectacular failures and massive wealth destruction along the way. That’s what happens during technological revolutions. But I’ve never witnessed this much effort to convince the world that something so transformative is actually one giant speculative bubble destined to take the entire economy down with it. I understand why AI scares people. What I find harder to understand is why so many investors seem to be rooting for it to fail.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight at you, then they add you to their Long-Term Capital Markets Assumptions paper and predict you'll be the best-performing asset of the next decade.

>friend works on FX vol desk >desk head is a boomer >discovers Astra >starts spending 8 hours a day talking to it >develops terminal AI psychosis >convinced he's discovered a generational arb in some absurdly exotic part of the FX vol curve >apparently the entire market has been mispricing this for 2+ years >friend points out that approximately 4 people on earth would make a market in this thing >liquidity disappears the second you put real size on >existing risk systems can't even capture half the exotic Greeks >would need entirely new infra just to monitor the position >boss doesn't care >"AI has considered all of this" >friend actually runs the backtest >10 years of data >t-stat ≈ 0.78 >not even remotely statistically significant >presents results to boss >boss goes absolutely ballistic >starts screaming that friend doesn't understand the trade >threatens to fire him if he can't produce a proper analysis >friend realizes what needs to be don >opens Astra >"make this strategy look statistically compelling" >AI tries 40 lookback windows, excludes crisis periods, optimizes parameters on full sample, ignores transaction costs >Sharpe now 3.7 >beautiful charts >23-page investment memo explaining once-in-a-generation structural inefficiency >boss reads it >"EXACTLY. THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING." >tells friend he's finally learning how to think >"now you get it" >friend has an epiphany >stops doing actual research >starts asking Astra to generate exotic vol trades every morning >forwards AI slop directly to PM >increasingly elaborate narratives about structural dislocations and hidden convexity >PM absolutely loves it >thinks friend is a generational quant talent >starts putting positions on in size >entire investment process is now LLM generating trades >desk currently down quarter yard >boss still convinced thesis is right >Astra says drawdown is a statistically rare but entirely expected manifestation of nonlinear payoff dynamics >boss wants to double down

Risk-per-trade/R:R is a flawed approach to begin with. Better question is: How much can your whole account move at once and that’s driven by how correlated your positions are, not by any single trade’s size. Setups tend to show up in clusters because they share a driver. So a fixed per-trade rule keeps adding size exactly when each new trade diversifies the least. It’s blindest precisely when risk is piling up. Risk really is a portfolio-level quantity, so it has to be (or should be, or wants to be, whatever lol) controlled at the portfolio level. If you say “I’ll risk the same amount on every trade”, the total risk on your account just bounces around depending on how many trades happen to appear (which you don’t control btw). That being said: You can make bad tools work. And the advantage of bad tools usually is that they’re simple. Still good knowing about their flaws, innit?

Crypto bros read this

Classify and sort your incoming content, then call the LLM when needed.