Crypto Cred's Channel FREE

An obvious but underappreciated fact: Crypto traders' high volatility tolerance can be a great source of edge It doesn't feel like it when you're bagholding a shitcoin that's drifting to zero or trading a 2% range with 50x leverage just to feel something But in the right context, the mental illness we've all acquired is almost certainly helpful For example: Normies who passively invest in the stock market start panicking whenever there's a red candle and magically turn into traders at the worst possible time A small drawdown has people restructuring their entire portfolios even though most of the research basically says "STFU and hold" when it comes to passive investing But if you've been in crypto long enough and you have a shred of discipline not to day trade your investments (especially outside of crypto) you're probably immune to those same drawdowns that make normies panic Unfortunately none of us have any money left for passive investing so I'll see you guys in the liquidations feed

Lads what is this what are we doing here

LTF gonna be noisy because round numbers, range boundaries, tradfi correlation etc. But HTFs look a bit shit given we're below the breakout levels I tend to lose money LTF knife-catching when HTFs look like this, so I am preserving my last $10 of capital Will wait for the quarter century & yearly close before assessing further Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Crypto changed my life. I was fat, lonely, insecure, living in my mum's basement, and working a mediocre job. Then I discovered crypto. Now I'm fat, lonely, insecure, living in my mum's basement, and have a crippling gambling addiction.

$BTC Vicious swing failure at the highs. Buyers were absorbed and trapped. Logically, being completely reasonable, the first level of support is the middle of the range at $69,000. But typically failure on one side signals a move to the opposite extremity. That would be a sweep of the resting liquidity at $15,000. Lots of unfilled orders there. A sweep and close above $15,000 would be an extremely bullish signal. Waiting for the yearly close for confirmation.

Majors close to ATH ZEC ripping Lighterliquid Aster revenge pump S&P + Gold ATH Prediction markets Dino coins pumping Everyone in Singapore is richer than you You missed it all It's over

“Comfy in spot” contains meaningful wisdom Crypto requires high volatility tolerance, especially if you’re planning to hold for weeks and months If you’re using perps to put on a ton of size, paying a shitload of funding, and have a hard stop in place - you’re more likely to mismanage the trade Spot (or lower leverage generally) eases this burden and allows your trade a chance to play out without you sweating every single tick

Risk management tip: don’t pick up the phone GM

“As soon as I fix my psychology I’ll be profitable.” - Dude who has no edge, no system, doesn’t test anything, doesn’t journal, and just draws lines on charts

The price is the price Your job is to determine whether it’s above or below fair value when you’re looking for a trade in that moment Tons of people missed out on $BTC because they didn’t buy when it was cheaper years ago and so the ‘new’ price felt ‘expensive’ Expensive compared to what? As prices update, so should your measurements of cheap and expensive Otherwise you’ll just be a prisoner of old prices, old information, and old mistakes

Market goes up: this is the final inning, last opportunity ever to escape the underclass and hyper gamble into wealth Market goes down: no rush, risk management first, wait for better conditions, the market isn’t going anywhere

Every System Sucks Social media trading glorifies perfect win rate systems with 0 drawdown entries that go straight to target. Gurus don't talk about their losing trades or losing streaks to maintain the fantasy that you can consistently risk and win without losing. This brainwashes their less experienced followers into believing they're doing something 'wrong' if they lose a trade (or multiple trades) and sends them on a goose chase for a mythical trading system that never loses money. It doesn't exist. If you trade, you're going to lose money at some point. Every edge or profitable trading system either decays over time or gets washed out completely by a change in the market regime. Trends end and have false starts. Trend followers get chopped. Breakouts fail. Momentum traders get trapped. Means stop reverting. Mean reverters get steamrolled. That doesn't mean the system is inherently flawed. It's just the cost of doing business. The point of risk management is to allow you to absorb those unavoidable losses and stay in the game. That's why it's called risk management, not risk avoidance. If you want to avoid losing trades, there's an easy way to do it: don't trade. Otherwise, you need to be comfortable with the fact that even the best trading system will eventually serve you losing trades. This is precisely why traders obsess over position sizing: the goal is to maximise your edge while it's there/the regime is supportive, without losing your shirt once it decays or disappears entirely. Crucially, if your previously profitable trading system starts losing, that can be an early warning signal that the underlying regime is changing. Losing streak on a trend following system that was printing? The market may be consolidating. Breakout trades turn into traps? The market may be running out of steam. Mean reversion trades overshooting their expected ranges? Volatility expansion may be underway. These are critical insights, but you can only meaningfully gain access to them if you're willing to stick to your system, learn its nuances, gather data, and take risk instead of panicking and abandoning ship after the first losing trade. To summarise: 1. Losses are inevitable. Every trading system experiences losing trades. They are the cost of doing business, not proof of a flawed system. 2. Risk management is not risk avoidance. The goal is to size such that losses don’t knock you out, not to eliminate losses entirely. 3. Edges decay. Market regimes shift, so a once profitable strategy may stop working and losses can be an early signal of change. 4. Stay disciplined & collect data. By sticking to your system through different regimes and by stomaching variance, you can learn its behaviour and spot regime shifts early. 5. There's no free lunch.

$BTC The most important range of our lives (until the next one)

There are lots of people who have been in crypto since my time (early 2017) that basically haven’t made any money You just don’t hear about them because dead bodies don’t talk You need to assume that you’re an impulsive idiot who will round trip most of your money So hedge against yourself Get a job (in crypto or otherwise) and shove it into the S&P 500 as a cushion It’s not sexy and your ego will take a hit, but it simply works ‘Worst’ case your crypto trading will be lower stress, you’ll make better decisions, and you’ll have more dry powder to execute on a few big trades per quarter or even per year What you see on your feed isn’t real: it’s massive survivorship bias with varying amounts of LARPing Zoomer trenches have microwaved normal people into thinking they need to be rotating 10x/day while ‘trading’ 16 hours/day while copy traders farm them, all while underperforming BTC Most people lose most of their money Survival is an actual edge in crypto, but you need to stick around long enough to make the most of it - and that means doing ‘boring’ stuff that works GM

Confirmation conformists regularly miss the forest for the trees and fumble otherwise excellent trades on account of their obsession with arbitrary confirmation requirements. There’s no particularly elegant heuristic here aside from ‘Zoom out and ask yourself what the fuck you’re doing and whether low time frame shadowpuppets are going to cost you the real trade’. “I think the market rips 30% from here but I will have literally 0 exposure unless my precise low time frame confirmation requirements are met.” Fucking really? Don’t be that guy (I’ve been that guy). Correctly Using Confirmation If used incorrectly, relying on a confirmation-based framework leads to risk avoidance, analysis paralysis, and missing out on trades without justification. The first question to ask yourself: Am I trying to manage risk or avoid it entirely? Most traders know the answer immediately and intuitively, even if it’s uncomfortable. I’ve been there before, especially after getting stopped out on a couple of trades in a row. I rationalised my fear of risk as some sort of higher probability entry framework. In reality, it was cope. What I was really doing was waiting for the market to bounce, and then chasing it. That’s not the same as trading the level itself. If you believe it’s a good level, bloody trade it. And if you get a good deal on it (bottom of support, top of resistance) then you should be grateful. If you don’t think it’s a good level, don’t trade it. But don’t contradict yourself and believe it’s a good level and then not trade it. That contradiction is at the core of a lot of confirmation trading. The same framework applies for trend following, mean reversion, momentum, and so forth. You can’t make the risk disappear completely if you want to get paid. There is always a chance you’ll be wrong and that you’ll get run over. There is no miracle sweet spot where the market will remove the risk and pay you the full purse at the same time. If you want better R:R and a better entry then the cost of that is less confirmation. If you want more confirmation then the cost of that is worse R:R and a worse entry. There is no magic median or free lunch. Just a bunch of cognitive traps in between that make you falsely believe that you can have the best of both worlds. Avoid the confirmation trap. Pick your poison. Embrace the risk and the uncertainty - it’s the only reason you get paid.

“Big level here, going to wait for the H4 close and M15 break in market structure before entering,” you mumble as you read out your favourite guru’s ‘M15 Entry Pattern’ that you bought for $99.99 in PDF form. The market hits the level, wicks through, closes the H4 above the level, and then goes vertical. You look at your trading terminal: absolutely no business done. The M15 was too quick and formed a big green dildo. You zoom out to the H4 and feel like an absolute cunt. The market, quite simply, hit your level and reversed. Yet you made no money. Who got paid on that trade? The traders who took the risk at the level, provided liquidity to aggressive sellers, and were willing to get run over and lose money if they’re wrong. Who didn’t get paid on that trade? You, because you wanted the real risk-takers to do all the heavy lifting for you and then conveniently coast on their coattails without any of the risk. By the time you decided to pull your finger out, it was too late. The entire profile of the trade had changed. Here’s the blunt truth: If you want the very best entries, you need to take risks that others either can’t, won’t, or don’t want. Buy support when it looks shit and like it’s about to roll over. Sell resistance when it looks great and like it’s about to moon. If your idea is correct, you’ll have a fantastic entry and can play offensively as well as compound. If your idea is incorrect, you might still be able to get out for a smaller loss if there’s a crappy reaction. Or at least you’ll be wrong quickly. Embrace the risk, get excited that there’s a real prospect of getting paid for what you’re attempting to do in the market, and focus on managing the risk instead of waiting for the opportunity to dissipate. Confirmation and Illusory Improvements Hallucination isn’t just for LLMs. Developing traders will very frequently convince themselves that something on the 1-minute chart has radically altered the entire setup and that now the trade is ‘confirmed’ - even if the market moved a few ticks because some cunt sneezed on the book. Take the following example. Bob has a high time frame idea to buy a daily level of support for a swing trade. That could mean that the trade may take days (multiple daily candles) to form and play out, including multiple revisits of the support area before the move materialises. But Bob loves watching technical analysis videos on YouTube. They’ve taught him that price is fractal (fucking TraderMayne, I swear to God) and that he can use very low time frame setups to inform and even trigger his high time frame trade. So Bob dutifully jumps down to the lower time frames and starts looking for ‘entry patterns’, and boy, there are plenty. While Bob is waiting for a clear market structure break into an inverted fair value gap retest at the OTE on the 1 minute to enter, guess what’s happening on the higher time frame (the one that actually matters for his trade)? Usually, fuck all. Bob is sat there trading Brownian motion from random market orders which are likely to have absolutely no bearing on his high time frame trade idea. You might be inclined to argue that this exercise doesn’t really matter as long as he gets an entry at the end of it, and I would generally agree. But that’s exactly the risk of this low time frame confirmation circlejerking: what if the optimal 1-minute time frame setup doesn’t form, and Bob misses the trade entirely? This happens very frequently to developing traders. They fixate on confirmation at the expense of the larger trade idea itself, and a rounding error on their entry that wasn’t satisfied by some arbitrary entry pattern stops them from taking the trade. An arbitrarily precise requirement for confirmation costs them the entire swing trade. For what benefit? A 0.5% better entry? On a 20% move? The numbers are made up, but they convey an important relationship: your degree of entry precision needs to be justifiable in relation to the size of the move you’re looking to trade.

Introduction Confirmation is a nebulous concept in trading. It is often presented as a risk-free way to enter a trade. At first glance, it seems quite sensible. After all, buying a dip when the market looks weak or selling a rip when the market looks strong is scary. What if you’re wrong? What if the level doesn’t hold? These uncertainties make the concept of confirmation alluring. What if you could remove the uncertainty and only enter when the move is confirmed? Well, that would be just great. Unfortunately, it’s almost always nonsense. Manage Risk, Don’t Avoid It Before outlining why confirmation doesn’t work as advertised, let’s investigate its appeal. A core function of any trader is risk management. We’ve all heard that before, and it’s true. But risk management implies taking risk and, well, managing it. Quantifying it, justifying it, shifting it around, amplifying it, reducing it, and so forth. As such, taking risk is both a necessary and unavoidable ingredient for making money. This is a risk-taking business; you quite literally get paid to take risk. For developing traders, an extremely common characteristic is not risk management. It is risk avoidance. This is materially different from risk management. Risk management implies an acceptance of risk and focuses on managing it. Risk avoidance implies not taking risk in the first place. This becomes very clear when you look at the type of questions those traders tend to fixate on. How do I know a level is going to hold? How do I know this setup is going to work? How do I get precise entries with 0 drawdown? Which indicator(s) can give me perfect signals for tops and bottoms? What’s the [perfect unicorn strategy that never loses]? Developing traders are obsessed with risk avoidance. They want to have their cake and eat it: get paid for taking a risk, without taking the actual risk. When taking a trade or researching a setup, it’s useful to ask yourself: Why should I get paid for this, and what’s the risk? If you’re short a perp with really high funding, you’re getting paid for the useful act of bringing the perp price closer to the index price. The risk is that funding doesn’t normalise and the market moves against your position (this is why the standard form funding rate arb trade requires you to offset your directional exposure via other instruments). If you’re trading liquidations, you’re providing liquidity to forced buyers/sellers. The risk is that you get run over yourself and become one of them. To be clear: you’re getting paid because there is a risk. One cannot exist without the other in any meaningful sense. As simple as that sounds, it often gets lost among beginner traders as gurus fill their heads with slop about perfect, risk-free entries, trading ‘models’ that don’t lose, flawless indicators, and so forth. The result is a bunch of traders terrified of taking any risk and perpetually hunting for a perfect system that doesn’t exist. Confirmation is a symptom of this risk-avoidant mindset. There is no free lunch. There are only trade-offs. Confirmation and Analysis Paralysis Defining terms is important. Confirmation is using additional evidence to validate a potential trade signal before acting on it. There are some very effective and sensible ways to add this to a trading system. For example, using market microstructure or order flow signals when trying to catch the extremity of a liquidation-driven move. Or using a momentum divergence signal when looking for signs of a reversal. Totally cool and valid. Trying to stack odds and develop stronger signals to increase your probability of being right is not the same as risk avoidance. The risk avoidance version of confirmation is when the confirmation only becomes actionable once a large portion of the trade has already played out and much of the risk (and by extension, the reason you would get paid) has dissipated. Here’s the most common example. The market is flying into an intraday support level. You’ve marked it out and reckon it’s good for a bounce.