First Block
670 Posts
First Block
Trader de futuros cripto | Holder de $BTC & $PAXG | Análisis fundamental | Riesgo • Liquidez • Estructura
Frequent Trader
2.3 Years
14 Following
612 Followers
1.0K+ Liked
Posts
All
Quotes
PINNED
💥 BTC IS STALLED ON A LIQUIDITY BOMB.
THE LAST SWEEP BEFORE LIFTOFF?
The liquidation map shows an important cluster just below the current price.
Historically, that kind of zone often acts like a magnet before the market decides its next move.
At the same time, funding remains positive and the long/short positioning is still relatively balanced, with no extremes that would force an immediate flush.
The 4H structure hasn’t been invalidated yet, and support continues to hold.
If that lower cluster ends up being swept and price quickly reclaims the level, it could become the final shakeout before going after the liquidity that remains above.
Liquidity usually sets the direction. Price simply finds a way to reach it.
Sweep and continuation... or will it be different this time?
THE LAST SWEEP BEFORE LIFTOFF?
The liquidation map shows an important cluster just below the current price.
Historically, that kind of zone often acts like a magnet before the market decides its next move.
At the same time, funding remains positive and the long/short positioning is still relatively balanced, with no extremes that would force an immediate flush.
The 4H structure hasn’t been invalidated yet, and support continues to hold.
If that lower cluster ends up being swept and price quickly reclaims the level, it could become the final shakeout before going after the liquidity that remains above.
Liquidity usually sets the direction. Price simply finds a way to reach it.
Sweep and continuation... or will it be different this time?
🚨 DO MARKET MAKERS MANIPULATE THE MARKET?
THE MOST REPEATED MYTH IN TRADING.
Every time the price sweeps a stop...
the same phrase shows up.
📌 "It was the Market Makers."
📌 "They manipulated the market."
📌 "They went hunting for liquidity."
And sometimes, it can seem that way.
The price reaches a zone.
It executes orders.
It moves with force.
And then it comes back.
So the conclusion seems obvious.
"They manipulated us."
But be careful.
📌 Just because a move looks like manipulation doesn’t mean it is.
Many times, the market is simply doing what it always does.
Hunt for liquidity.
Execute orders.
Resolve imbalances between buyers and sellers.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t manipulative practices.
They do exist.
Spoofing, wash trading, or some strategies to influence how the market is perceived are real examples.
But one thing is that those practices exist...
And a very different thing is believing that every liquidity sweep, every wick, or every stop that gets triggered is the result of manipulation.
Market Makers don’t need to control the whole market either.
Their main function is different.
Provide liquidity.
Make buying and selling easier.
Reduce friction so the market can keep working.
And as a consequence of that process, the price often ends up searching for zones where there’s a higher concentration of orders.
🎯 That’s the difference.
If every bad trade ends up being blamed on the Market Makers...
you’ll never fix your own mistakes.
But if you understand how liquidity works...
you’ll start interpreting many moves that used to seem like "manipulation".
📌 It’s not about finding a culprit.
It’s about understanding what’s happening behind the chart.
Because the market is usually far more complex than a simple conspiracy theory.
💬 What do you think?
Do Market Makers manipulate the market... or many times are we just seeing how price hunts for liquidity?
THE MOST REPEATED MYTH IN TRADING.
Every time the price sweeps a stop...
the same phrase shows up.
📌 "It was the Market Makers."
📌 "They manipulated the market."
📌 "They went hunting for liquidity."
And sometimes, it can seem that way.
The price reaches a zone.
It executes orders.
It moves with force.
And then it comes back.
So the conclusion seems obvious.
"They manipulated us."
But be careful.
📌 Just because a move looks like manipulation doesn’t mean it is.
Many times, the market is simply doing what it always does.
Hunt for liquidity.
Execute orders.
Resolve imbalances between buyers and sellers.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t manipulative practices.
They do exist.
Spoofing, wash trading, or some strategies to influence how the market is perceived are real examples.
But one thing is that those practices exist...
And a very different thing is believing that every liquidity sweep, every wick, or every stop that gets triggered is the result of manipulation.
Market Makers don’t need to control the whole market either.
Their main function is different.
Provide liquidity.
Make buying and selling easier.
Reduce friction so the market can keep working.
And as a consequence of that process, the price often ends up searching for zones where there’s a higher concentration of orders.
🎯 That’s the difference.
If every bad trade ends up being blamed on the Market Makers...
you’ll never fix your own mistakes.
But if you understand how liquidity works...
you’ll start interpreting many moves that used to seem like "manipulation".
📌 It’s not about finding a culprit.
It’s about understanding what’s happening behind the chart.
Because the market is usually far more complex than a simple conspiracy theory.
💬 What do you think?
Do Market Makers manipulate the market... or many times are we just seeing how price hunts for liquidity?
💥 DOES THE RSI SERVE ANY PURPOSE...
OR IS IT ONE OF THE MOST OVERRATED INDICATORS IN TECHNICAL ANALYSIS?
It’s one of the most used indicators in technical analysis.
And also one of the most defended.
But almost nobody asks:
What information does it provide that the price isn’t already showing?
Most people learned something very simple.
🟢 RSI above 70 = sell.
🔴 RSI below 30 = buy.
But...
Have you ever wondered what the RSI actually calculates?
The RSI (Relative Strength Index) does not include information about volume, order flow, or liquidity.
It also doesn’t try to predict the next move.
It mathematically processes the changes between closes to measure the relative strength of recent upswings and downswings.
In other words...
It doesn’t incorporate new information.
It summarizes, in a single indicator, information the price has already shown.
When it goes above 70...
Many conclude:
"It’s overbought. You should sell."
But the price rose with such force that the RSI simply ended up reflecting that momentum.
And if the trend continues...
It can remain overbought while the price keeps rising.
The same happens below 30.
It’s not that the market drops because the RSI got there.
The RSI gets there because the price already fell strongly.
And if selling pressure continues...
It can remain oversold while the price keeps falling.
So...
Is it overvalued?
For me, no.
What’s overvalued is believing that, by itself, it can tell you when to buy or sell.
As a tool to measure momentum, it adds value.
As a standalone decision-making tool, it often produces more mistakes than wins.
Because the RSI doesn’t answer:
"What is the market going to do?"
It answers a different question:
"With what strength did the market reach this point?"
💬 Do you think the RSI provides information you don’t see in the price... or does it simply summarize in a different way what the price already showed?
OR IS IT ONE OF THE MOST OVERRATED INDICATORS IN TECHNICAL ANALYSIS?
It’s one of the most used indicators in technical analysis.
And also one of the most defended.
But almost nobody asks:
What information does it provide that the price isn’t already showing?
Most people learned something very simple.
🟢 RSI above 70 = sell.
🔴 RSI below 30 = buy.
But...
Have you ever wondered what the RSI actually calculates?
The RSI (Relative Strength Index) does not include information about volume, order flow, or liquidity.
It also doesn’t try to predict the next move.
It mathematically processes the changes between closes to measure the relative strength of recent upswings and downswings.
In other words...
It doesn’t incorporate new information.
It summarizes, in a single indicator, information the price has already shown.
When it goes above 70...
Many conclude:
"It’s overbought. You should sell."
But the price rose with such force that the RSI simply ended up reflecting that momentum.
And if the trend continues...
It can remain overbought while the price keeps rising.
The same happens below 30.
It’s not that the market drops because the RSI got there.
The RSI gets there because the price already fell strongly.
And if selling pressure continues...
It can remain oversold while the price keeps falling.
So...
Is it overvalued?
For me, no.
What’s overvalued is believing that, by itself, it can tell you when to buy or sell.
As a tool to measure momentum, it adds value.
As a standalone decision-making tool, it often produces more mistakes than wins.
Because the RSI doesn’t answer:
"What is the market going to do?"
It answers a different question:
"With what strength did the market reach this point?"
💬 Do you think the RSI provides information you don’t see in the price... or does it simply summarize in a different way what the price already showed?
💥 MOST PEOPLE DON’T RUIN THEIR ACCOUNT WITH A BAD ENTRY.
THEY RUIN IT BY RISKING TOO MUCH ON A TRADE THAT “SEEMED PERFECT.”
There’s a question that almost nobody asks.
And, for me, it’s more important than finding a good entry.
How much of my account am I willing to lose if this trade goes wrong?
Because we all think about Take Profit.
Very few define the risk first.
And that’s where the problem starts.
The trade looks perfect.
You increase the position size.
You move the limit a bit further.
“This time it’s worth it.”
Until one day...
It doesn’t work out.
And a single trade ends up wiping out weeks —or months— of work.
In futures, a good entry doesn’t make up for poor risk management.
Because even the best strategies have losing trades.
The difference is that the traders who survive already know how much they’re willing to lose before opening the position.
And only then do they calculate the trade size.
Not the other way around.
Because the goal isn’t to win this trade.
It’s to keep enough capital to take advantage of the next hundred.
The market will always present new opportunities.
What doesn’t always come back...
Is the capital you didn’t protect.
💬 What percentage of your account do you risk on a single trade?
THEY RUIN IT BY RISKING TOO MUCH ON A TRADE THAT “SEEMED PERFECT.”
There’s a question that almost nobody asks.
And, for me, it’s more important than finding a good entry.
How much of my account am I willing to lose if this trade goes wrong?
Because we all think about Take Profit.
Very few define the risk first.
And that’s where the problem starts.
The trade looks perfect.
You increase the position size.
You move the limit a bit further.
“This time it’s worth it.”
Until one day...
It doesn’t work out.
And a single trade ends up wiping out weeks —or months— of work.
In futures, a good entry doesn’t make up for poor risk management.
Because even the best strategies have losing trades.
The difference is that the traders who survive already know how much they’re willing to lose before opening the position.
And only then do they calculate the trade size.
Not the other way around.
Because the goal isn’t to win this trade.
It’s to keep enough capital to take advantage of the next hundred.
The market will always present new opportunities.
What doesn’t always come back...
Is the capital you didn’t protect.
💬 What percentage of your account do you risk on a single trade?
Verified
💥 Could ETH Reach 10,000 USD?
Before you look at the price... look at what Vitalik is doing.
Every time Ethereum goes up...
The conversation goes back to the same.
"Will it reach 5,000?"
"Can it touch 10,000?"
But while many debate a number...
Vitalik Buterin keeps working on a different direction.
How to make Ethereum a more solid network.
His most recent proposal seeks to rethink part of how DeFi works to reduce forced liquidations, lessen reliance on certain oracles, and make the ecosystem more resilient to extreme events.
This is not an update that’s already been implemented.
It’s a research proposal.
But it makes something very clear.
Ethereum is still evolving.
And that matters.
Because a blockchain doesn’t gain value only because the price goes up.
It gains value when it manages to get more people, companies, and developers to want to build on it.
When it improves security.
When it reduces risks.
When it makes it easier to develop new applications.
And when it continues solving real problems.
All of that strengthens its fundamentals.
So does that mean ETH will reach $10,000?
No.
Price also depends on liquidity, the macroeconomic context, adoption, and market interest.
But there’s a huge difference between a cryptocurrency that simply waits for new money to come in...
And another one that keeps improving its technology while that money decides whether to enter or not.
That’s why, before asking whether ETH can reach 10,000...
I’d rather ask a different question.
Is Ethereum building the conditions so that a much higher valuation makes sense?
Because, in the end...
Big price moves can start with a narrative.
But the projects that last usually are supported by fundamentals.
💬 What do you think?
Does technological development end up reflecting in the price... or does the market end up rewarding other things?
#VitalikOutlinesLeanEthereumRoadmap #Ethereum
Before you look at the price... look at what Vitalik is doing.
Every time Ethereum goes up...
The conversation goes back to the same.
"Will it reach 5,000?"
"Can it touch 10,000?"
But while many debate a number...
Vitalik Buterin keeps working on a different direction.
How to make Ethereum a more solid network.
His most recent proposal seeks to rethink part of how DeFi works to reduce forced liquidations, lessen reliance on certain oracles, and make the ecosystem more resilient to extreme events.
This is not an update that’s already been implemented.
It’s a research proposal.
But it makes something very clear.
Ethereum is still evolving.
And that matters.
Because a blockchain doesn’t gain value only because the price goes up.
It gains value when it manages to get more people, companies, and developers to want to build on it.
When it improves security.
When it reduces risks.
When it makes it easier to develop new applications.
And when it continues solving real problems.
All of that strengthens its fundamentals.
So does that mean ETH will reach $10,000?
No.
Price also depends on liquidity, the macroeconomic context, adoption, and market interest.
But there’s a huge difference between a cryptocurrency that simply waits for new money to come in...
And another one that keeps improving its technology while that money decides whether to enter or not.
That’s why, before asking whether ETH can reach 10,000...
I’d rather ask a different question.
Is Ethereum building the conditions so that a much higher valuation makes sense?
Because, in the end...
Big price moves can start with a narrative.
But the projects that last usually are supported by fundamentals.
💬 What do you think?
Does technological development end up reflecting in the price... or does the market end up rewarding other things?
#VitalikOutlinesLeanEthereumRoadmap #Ethereum
💥 BTC DROPPED MORE THAN 50%.
ETH IS CLOSE TO 65%.
AND THE CRYPTO MARKET LOST ALMOST HALF OF ITS VALUE.
Then an uncomfortable question comes up.
Is this still a correction... or are we already facing a bear market?
I’m not asking just to put a label on it.
I’m asking because the answer can completely change how you operate.
The numbers are clear.
📉 Bitcoin fell more than 50% from its October 2025 all-time high.
📉 Ethereum retreated by about 65% from its cycle high.
📉 And total market capitalization went from over $4 trillion to a zone close to $2.2 trillion.
Historically, moves of this magnitude were considered bear markets.
But this cycle has important differences.
Spot ETFs.
Higher institutional participation.
More infrastructure.
A much more mature market.
And that’s where the debate begins.
Is it enough to look at the percentage drop to say we’re in a bear market?
Or has the context changed enough to interpret these moves differently?
Because, for me, this discussion isn’t just semantics.
It has consequences.
If you assume this is only a correction...
You’ll probably keep a more aggressive strategy.
If you assume it’s a bear market...
You may prioritize protecting capital, reducing exposure, or waiting for better confirmations.
The label doesn’t move the price.
But it can change the way you manage risk.
And that’s, for me, the real value of asking this question.
💬 What do you think?
Bear market... or a deep correction within a larger bull cycle?
ETH IS CLOSE TO 65%.
AND THE CRYPTO MARKET LOST ALMOST HALF OF ITS VALUE.
Then an uncomfortable question comes up.
Is this still a correction... or are we already facing a bear market?
I’m not asking just to put a label on it.
I’m asking because the answer can completely change how you operate.
The numbers are clear.
📉 Bitcoin fell more than 50% from its October 2025 all-time high.
📉 Ethereum retreated by about 65% from its cycle high.
📉 And total market capitalization went from over $4 trillion to a zone close to $2.2 trillion.
Historically, moves of this magnitude were considered bear markets.
But this cycle has important differences.
Spot ETFs.
Higher institutional participation.
More infrastructure.
A much more mature market.
And that’s where the debate begins.
Is it enough to look at the percentage drop to say we’re in a bear market?
Or has the context changed enough to interpret these moves differently?
Because, for me, this discussion isn’t just semantics.
It has consequences.
If you assume this is only a correction...
You’ll probably keep a more aggressive strategy.
If you assume it’s a bear market...
You may prioritize protecting capital, reducing exposure, or waiting for better confirmations.
The label doesn’t move the price.
But it can change the way you manage risk.
And that’s, for me, the real value of asking this question.
💬 What do you think?
Bear market... or a deep correction within a larger bull cycle?
💥 THERE’S SOMETHING MANY TRADERS TAKE YEARS TO UNDERSTAND.
TRADING IS NOT BASED ON PREDICTIONS.
IT’S BASED ON PROBABILITIES.
And understanding that difference completely changes the way you trade.
Many believe that if they did a good analysis...
Then the price should do exactly what they expected.
But the market doesn’t work that way.
A good analysis can end in a loss.
And a bad analysis can end in a gain.
Because a trade is never a certainty.
It’s one possibility among many.
That’s the difference between a beginner trader and a professional.
The beginner thinks about the next trade.
The professional thinks about the next hundred.
They know they don’t need to be right all the time.
They need to execute a strategy with discipline.
Respect their risk management.
And let the probabilities do their job.
Because the goal isn’t to win this trade.
It’s that, after many trades, the statistical edge of your strategy shows up in the results.
That’s why consistent traders don’t look for being right.
They look for making small mistakes.
Because they understood something fundamental.
The one who’s most accurate doesn’t win.
The one who knows how to lose best wins.
The day you understand that...
You stop trying to predict the market.
And you start trading probabilities.
💬 How long did it take you to understand that a loss doesn’t always mean the analysis was bad?
TRADING IS NOT BASED ON PREDICTIONS.
IT’S BASED ON PROBABILITIES.
And understanding that difference completely changes the way you trade.
Many believe that if they did a good analysis...
Then the price should do exactly what they expected.
But the market doesn’t work that way.
A good analysis can end in a loss.
And a bad analysis can end in a gain.
Because a trade is never a certainty.
It’s one possibility among many.
That’s the difference between a beginner trader and a professional.
The beginner thinks about the next trade.
The professional thinks about the next hundred.
They know they don’t need to be right all the time.
They need to execute a strategy with discipline.
Respect their risk management.
And let the probabilities do their job.
Because the goal isn’t to win this trade.
It’s that, after many trades, the statistical edge of your strategy shows up in the results.
That’s why consistent traders don’t look for being right.
They look for making small mistakes.
Because they understood something fundamental.
The one who’s most accurate doesn’t win.
The one who knows how to lose best wins.
The day you understand that...
You stop trying to predict the market.
And you start trading probabilities.
💬 How long did it take you to understand that a loss doesn’t always mean the analysis was bad?
💥 SMA or EMA?
IF YOU USE THE SAME STRATEGY... DOES IT REALLY CHANGE SOMETHING?
If you’ve been trading for a while...
Surely you’ve heard some of these phrases.
🟢 "EMAs are better because they react faster."
🔵 "SMAs are more reliable."
And then the classics show up.
"I only use EMA."
"The SMA doesn’t work."
But...
Is one really better than the other?
It depends on what you’re looking for.
The EMA (Exponential Moving Average) gives more weight to recent prices.
That’s why it often reacts earlier when the market changes direction.
That speed can help you spot a potential move sooner.
But it can also generate more crossovers and more noise when the market enters a sideways phase.
The SMA (Simple Moving Average), on the other hand, gives the same weight to all data points in the period.
That’s why it usually reacts more slowly.
This often filters some of the short-term noise, although it may confirm the moves later.
So...
If you do exactly the same crossover strategy...
Can the results change?
Yes.
Because entries and exits don’t happen at the same moment.
The EMA usually produces crossovers first.
The SMA usually confirms them later.
There’s no evidence that one is universally superior to the other.
Everything depends on the asset, the time frame, and your strategy.
And that’s where the question appears that, for me, almost nobody asks.
What’s more important for your strategy?
Entering earlier... or confirming better?
Because entering earlier doesn’t always mean trading better.
And confirming later doesn’t always mean trading worse.
📌 For me, the mistake isn’t using EMA or SMA.
The mistake is believing that a moving average, by itself, turns a strategy into something profitable.
Moving averages are tools.
They don’t replace structure, context, risk management, or discipline.
And swapping an EMA for an SMA won’t fix a strategy that already has underlying problems.
💬 I’m all ears.
If tomorrow you had to trade a moving-average crossover strategy...
Would you choose EMA or SMA? Why?
IF YOU USE THE SAME STRATEGY... DOES IT REALLY CHANGE SOMETHING?
If you’ve been trading for a while...
Surely you’ve heard some of these phrases.
🟢 "EMAs are better because they react faster."
🔵 "SMAs are more reliable."
And then the classics show up.
"I only use EMA."
"The SMA doesn’t work."
But...
Is one really better than the other?
It depends on what you’re looking for.
The EMA (Exponential Moving Average) gives more weight to recent prices.
That’s why it often reacts earlier when the market changes direction.
That speed can help you spot a potential move sooner.
But it can also generate more crossovers and more noise when the market enters a sideways phase.
The SMA (Simple Moving Average), on the other hand, gives the same weight to all data points in the period.
That’s why it usually reacts more slowly.
This often filters some of the short-term noise, although it may confirm the moves later.
So...
If you do exactly the same crossover strategy...
Can the results change?
Yes.
Because entries and exits don’t happen at the same moment.
The EMA usually produces crossovers first.
The SMA usually confirms them later.
There’s no evidence that one is universally superior to the other.
Everything depends on the asset, the time frame, and your strategy.
And that’s where the question appears that, for me, almost nobody asks.
What’s more important for your strategy?
Entering earlier... or confirming better?
Because entering earlier doesn’t always mean trading better.
And confirming later doesn’t always mean trading worse.
📌 For me, the mistake isn’t using EMA or SMA.
The mistake is believing that a moving average, by itself, turns a strategy into something profitable.
Moving averages are tools.
They don’t replace structure, context, risk management, or discipline.
And swapping an EMA for an SMA won’t fix a strategy that already has underlying problems.
💬 I’m all ears.
If tomorrow you had to trade a moving-average crossover strategy...
Would you choose EMA or SMA? Why?
💥 A CRYPTOCAN HAVE THE BEST TECHNOLOGY IN THE WORLD...
AND STILL BE USELESS.
That sounds harsh.
But it happens much more often than you might think.
When we talk about use cases, we’re talking about a very simple question:
What is this project for?
Because creating a blockchain is relatively easy.
The hard part is having someone who truly needs it.
When I analyze a cryptocurrency, I try to answer questions like:
📌 What problem does it solve?
📌 Who needs that solution?
📌 Are there other cryptocurrencies that already do the same?
📌 Does it have any advantages over the competition?
📌 Is the token really necessary, or could it work just as well without it?
This last question seems like one of the most important.
Because many projects create a token...
Simply because they can.
Not because it’s necessary.
And if the token doesn’t add value to how the project functions...
Then you also have to ask:
Why should its value increase over time?
That’s why, before looking at the chart...
I try to understand what it’s for.
Because a good idea doesn’t always turn into a good project.
And good technology doesn’t always find users.
📌 In the previous post, we talked about the fundamentals.
Today we take one step further.
The use case.
Because understanding what a cryptocurrency exists for is often far more important than knowing how much it’s worth today.
💬 What do you think has today the most solid use case: BTC, ETH, SOL, BNB, XRP... or another?
AND STILL BE USELESS.
That sounds harsh.
But it happens much more often than you might think.
When we talk about use cases, we’re talking about a very simple question:
What is this project for?
Because creating a blockchain is relatively easy.
The hard part is having someone who truly needs it.
When I analyze a cryptocurrency, I try to answer questions like:
📌 What problem does it solve?
📌 Who needs that solution?
📌 Are there other cryptocurrencies that already do the same?
📌 Does it have any advantages over the competition?
📌 Is the token really necessary, or could it work just as well without it?
This last question seems like one of the most important.
Because many projects create a token...
Simply because they can.
Not because it’s necessary.
And if the token doesn’t add value to how the project functions...
Then you also have to ask:
Why should its value increase over time?
That’s why, before looking at the chart...
I try to understand what it’s for.
Because a good idea doesn’t always turn into a good project.
And good technology doesn’t always find users.
📌 In the previous post, we talked about the fundamentals.
Today we take one step further.
The use case.
Because understanding what a cryptocurrency exists for is often far more important than knowing how much it’s worth today.
💬 What do you think has today the most solid use case: BTC, ETH, SOL, BNB, XRP... or another?
💥 WHAT A BAD TIME TO BE IN SHORTS ON ETH
Traders may be about to suffer.
At first glance, it looks like ETH is stalling its momentum.
But the data tells a different story.
The structure remains bullish on both 4H and 1D.
Funding continues slightly positive, with no signs of euphoria.
Positioning between longs and shorts stays fairly balanced, so there still isn’t an excess of buyers forcing a corrective move.
And while many try to sell the top...
The liquidity maps still show fuel above.
Main scenario (65%) 📈
If ETH holds this structure and re-accepts above the recent highs, the path toward the next liquidity zones remains the most likely route.
Alternative scenario (35%) 📉
If it loses momentum and starts accepting below the last support, it could first seek the lower liquidity before attempting a new move.
For now, the pressure on sellers seems greater than on buyers.
And when too many traders insist on selling a strong trend...
More often than not, they end up becoming the fuel for the next impulse.
Which scenario do you think is more likely? 👇
$ETH
Traders may be about to suffer.
At first glance, it looks like ETH is stalling its momentum.
But the data tells a different story.
The structure remains bullish on both 4H and 1D.
Funding continues slightly positive, with no signs of euphoria.
Positioning between longs and shorts stays fairly balanced, so there still isn’t an excess of buyers forcing a corrective move.
And while many try to sell the top...
The liquidity maps still show fuel above.
Main scenario (65%) 📈
If ETH holds this structure and re-accepts above the recent highs, the path toward the next liquidity zones remains the most likely route.
Alternative scenario (35%) 📉
If it loses momentum and starts accepting below the last support, it could first seek the lower liquidity before attempting a new move.
For now, the pressure on sellers seems greater than on buyers.
And when too many traders insist on selling a strong trend...
More often than not, they end up becoming the fuel for the next impulse.
Which scenario do you think is more likely? 👇
$ETH
💥 Will BTC reach 65K, or is this a bullish trap?
Liquidity maps are telling an interesting story.
📊 At first glance, it looks like BTC is consolidating.
But when you combine structure, liquidity, and positioning, several clues are worth watching:
• Price continues rotating near the POC, a zone where buyers and sellers keep negotiating control.
• Funding remains slightly positive. There’s a higher willingness for longs, but far from euphoric levels.
• The Long/Short ratio maintains a slight edge for buyers.
• In the last 24 hours, more shorts than longs were liquidated—an indication that the most recent push forced bearish positions to close.
• Open interest declines while price stays stable.
That usually reflects position closures, especially shorts, and also a market starting to lose participation as the weekend approaches.
Now the interesting part.
Short-term liquidation maps show fuel both above and below.
However, when you extend the time horizon, the larger clusters still concentrate slightly below the current price.
That means neither scenario is confirmed.
📈 Main scenario (60%)
As long as BTC continues to accept prices above the POC and holds the current structure, the higher-probability outcome remains an attack on the 63.4–63.5K zone.
If that liquidity is absorbed and price accepts above that resistance, that’s when the path toward 65K would start to open.
📉 Alternative scenario (40%)
If the momentum loses steam and the market starts seeking lower liquidity again, there’s still enough fuel for a rotation toward the clusters located below the price.
For now, I don’t see enough evidence to talk about a bearish reversal.
Nor a clear path to 65K.
The market is still building context.
And the next major decision will likely come when it attacks the 63.5K liquidity.
Liquidity maps are telling an interesting story.
📊 At first glance, it looks like BTC is consolidating.
But when you combine structure, liquidity, and positioning, several clues are worth watching:
• Price continues rotating near the POC, a zone where buyers and sellers keep negotiating control.
• Funding remains slightly positive. There’s a higher willingness for longs, but far from euphoric levels.
• The Long/Short ratio maintains a slight edge for buyers.
• In the last 24 hours, more shorts than longs were liquidated—an indication that the most recent push forced bearish positions to close.
• Open interest declines while price stays stable.
That usually reflects position closures, especially shorts, and also a market starting to lose participation as the weekend approaches.
Now the interesting part.
Short-term liquidation maps show fuel both above and below.
However, when you extend the time horizon, the larger clusters still concentrate slightly below the current price.
That means neither scenario is confirmed.
📈 Main scenario (60%)
As long as BTC continues to accept prices above the POC and holds the current structure, the higher-probability outcome remains an attack on the 63.4–63.5K zone.
If that liquidity is absorbed and price accepts above that resistance, that’s when the path toward 65K would start to open.
📉 Alternative scenario (40%)
If the momentum loses steam and the market starts seeking lower liquidity again, there’s still enough fuel for a rotation toward the clusters located below the price.
For now, I don’t see enough evidence to talk about a bearish reversal.
Nor a clear path to 65K.
The market is still building context.
And the next major decision will likely come when it attacks the 63.5K liquidity.
💥 HOW DO YOU KNOW IF A CRYPTO IS WORTH IT... OR IF THEY’RE JUST SELLING YOU SMOKE?
Thousands of projects promise to revolutionize the world.
Very few have the foundations to make that happen.
And for me, that’s the first filter before investing.
Because a cryptocurrency can go up 100%.
Have millions of followers.
Be on every exchange.
And still... eat up all the money you invested.
So...
What are the real foundations of a project?
They’re the features that determine whether a cryptocurrency has value beyond the price.
Put another way...
They’re the reasons why a project might still be around five or ten years from now.
Because a cryptocurrency can rise simply because a lot of people are buying it.
But that doesn’t mean the project is good.
The fundamentals try to answer a much more important question:
If tomorrow the hype disappeared...
Would this project still make sense?
And to answer that, you have to look at things that the price never shows.
📌 What problem does it solve?
📌 What is the token really for?
📌 Are developers working on the project?
📌 Does it have real users or is it just speculation?
📌 Does the technology bring anything truly different?
📌 Is the ecosystem still growing?
Because in the end...
Fundamentals don’t analyze how much a cryptocurrency is worth.
They analyze whether it truly deserves to be worth something.
And that difference can keep you from ending up investing in projects that live only on hype.
📌 This is the first in a series where we’ll learn how to analyze a cryptocurrency before investing a single dollar.
In the coming days we’ll talk about:
✅ Use case.
✅ Tokenomics.
✅ Market Cap vs FDV.
✅ Liquidity.
✅ Community and developers.
✅ Adoption.
And then we’ll apply all that analysis to BTC, ETH, SOL, BNB, XRP, and other projects.
💬 Tell me the truth...
Have you ever bought a cryptocurrency just because it was going up?
Thousands of projects promise to revolutionize the world.
Very few have the foundations to make that happen.
And for me, that’s the first filter before investing.
Because a cryptocurrency can go up 100%.
Have millions of followers.
Be on every exchange.
And still... eat up all the money you invested.
So...
What are the real foundations of a project?
They’re the features that determine whether a cryptocurrency has value beyond the price.
Put another way...
They’re the reasons why a project might still be around five or ten years from now.
Because a cryptocurrency can rise simply because a lot of people are buying it.
But that doesn’t mean the project is good.
The fundamentals try to answer a much more important question:
If tomorrow the hype disappeared...
Would this project still make sense?
And to answer that, you have to look at things that the price never shows.
📌 What problem does it solve?
📌 What is the token really for?
📌 Are developers working on the project?
📌 Does it have real users or is it just speculation?
📌 Does the technology bring anything truly different?
📌 Is the ecosystem still growing?
Because in the end...
Fundamentals don’t analyze how much a cryptocurrency is worth.
They analyze whether it truly deserves to be worth something.
And that difference can keep you from ending up investing in projects that live only on hype.
📌 This is the first in a series where we’ll learn how to analyze a cryptocurrency before investing a single dollar.
In the coming days we’ll talk about:
✅ Use case.
✅ Tokenomics.
✅ Market Cap vs FDV.
✅ Liquidity.
✅ Community and developers.
✅ Adoption.
And then we’ll apply all that analysis to BTC, ETH, SOL, BNB, XRP, and other projects.
💬 Tell me the truth...
Have you ever bought a cryptocurrency just because it was going up?
💥 CAN SCALPING REALLY BE DONE BY LOOKING ONLY AT THE ORDER BOOK?
Or is it much more difficult than it seems?
Every so often, someone shows up saying:
"I do scalping by looking only at the order book."
And the truth is...
The idea sounds spectacular.
But it also makes me wonder.
Is that really enough?
The Order Book shows pending buy and sell orders.
And yes...
It can provide very valuable information.
But it also has limitations.
Orders can:
📌 Be canceled before they get executed.
📌 Change price in seconds.
📌 Be used to create a false sense of supply or demand (spoofing).
And, besides...
The market doesn’t move only based on the orders visible in the book.
Executed orders also matter, as does available liquidity, the broader context, the price structure, and the behavior of market participants.
That’s why many traders who work with Order Flow don’t rely on the Order Book alone.
They also analyze tools like Time & Sales, Footprint Charts, Volume Profile, and—most importantly—the market context.
So...
Can you do scalping by looking only at the Order Book?
Probably yes.
There are traders with the experience, speed, and tools to do it.
But from there to believing that simply opening the order book is enough to be profitable... that’s a huge leap.
📌 For me, the problem isn’t the Order Book.
The problem is thinking that one single tool is enough to read such a complex market.
💬 What do you think?
Is the Order Book, by itself, enough to do scalping, or does it need to be supported by other tools?
Or is it much more difficult than it seems?
Every so often, someone shows up saying:
"I do scalping by looking only at the order book."
And the truth is...
The idea sounds spectacular.
But it also makes me wonder.
Is that really enough?
The Order Book shows pending buy and sell orders.
And yes...
It can provide very valuable information.
But it also has limitations.
Orders can:
📌 Be canceled before they get executed.
📌 Change price in seconds.
📌 Be used to create a false sense of supply or demand (spoofing).
And, besides...
The market doesn’t move only based on the orders visible in the book.
Executed orders also matter, as does available liquidity, the broader context, the price structure, and the behavior of market participants.
That’s why many traders who work with Order Flow don’t rely on the Order Book alone.
They also analyze tools like Time & Sales, Footprint Charts, Volume Profile, and—most importantly—the market context.
So...
Can you do scalping by looking only at the Order Book?
Probably yes.
There are traders with the experience, speed, and tools to do it.
But from there to believing that simply opening the order book is enough to be profitable... that’s a huge leap.
📌 For me, the problem isn’t the Order Book.
The problem is thinking that one single tool is enough to read such a complex market.
💬 What do you think?
Is the Order Book, by itself, enough to do scalping, or does it need to be supported by other tools?
💥 BITCOIN IS WORTH ALMOST THE SAME AS IN 2021.
BUT THERE’S ONE DETAIL THAT ALMOST NOBODY IS LOOKING AT.
At first glance, the chart seems to say we’re repeating history.
Bitcoin’s market capitalization has returned to a zone very similar to the 2021–2022 cycle.
And that’s where many people start jumping to quick conclusions.
“Then the market is going to do the same thing.”
I’m not so sure.
Because the capitalization can look the same.
The context isn’t.
In 2021, much of the momentum was supported by interest rates near zero, abundant global liquidity, and strong speculative participation.
Today, the scenario is different.
There are spot ETFs that channel part of institutional demand; the market has a much more developed infrastructure; and the participation of companies and institutional investors is significantly higher than five years ago.
Does that mean Bitcoin can’t correct?
Not at all.
Corrections will continue to be part of the market.
But it makes me think that comparing this cycle with the previous one only based on market capitalization could be a mistake.
Because two markets can be worth almost the same… and yet be supported by completely different participants.
And that could change many things.
The speed of the rallies.
The depth of the corrections.
Or even the way the cycle unfolds.
That’s why, when I compare one market to another, I try to look at more than just price or capitalization.
I try to understand what’s driving that move.
Because charts show what happened.
The context helps interpret what could happen next.
💬 What do you think?
Will this cycle end up resembling 2021, or could the change in market participants make the story different?
BUT THERE’S ONE DETAIL THAT ALMOST NOBODY IS LOOKING AT.
At first glance, the chart seems to say we’re repeating history.
Bitcoin’s market capitalization has returned to a zone very similar to the 2021–2022 cycle.
And that’s where many people start jumping to quick conclusions.
“Then the market is going to do the same thing.”
I’m not so sure.
Because the capitalization can look the same.
The context isn’t.
In 2021, much of the momentum was supported by interest rates near zero, abundant global liquidity, and strong speculative participation.
Today, the scenario is different.
There are spot ETFs that channel part of institutional demand; the market has a much more developed infrastructure; and the participation of companies and institutional investors is significantly higher than five years ago.
Does that mean Bitcoin can’t correct?
Not at all.
Corrections will continue to be part of the market.
But it makes me think that comparing this cycle with the previous one only based on market capitalization could be a mistake.
Because two markets can be worth almost the same… and yet be supported by completely different participants.
And that could change many things.
The speed of the rallies.
The depth of the corrections.
Or even the way the cycle unfolds.
That’s why, when I compare one market to another, I try to look at more than just price or capitalization.
I try to understand what’s driving that move.
Because charts show what happened.
The context helps interpret what could happen next.
💬 What do you think?
Will this cycle end up resembling 2021, or could the change in market participants make the story different?
💥 The SUN EXPLODES! ARE WE GOING TO 85 USD SOON?
What a lovely and desirable scenario.
But... does the market really support that idea?
For now, I see several interesting points:
✅ The structure is still bullish.
✅ Price is rising with orderly pullbacks, without completely vertical moves.
✅ Open interest didn’t spike along with the price. That lowers the likelihood that all the momentum is driven purely by leverage.
✅ Funding remains relatively balanced. There’s no sign of the kind of euphoria that’s often seen near short-term tops.
Also, in the last 24 hours, about 4 times more short positions were liquidated than long ones—something consistent with a move driven by a squeeze while sellers got trapped.
Now then...
The next important test is between 82 and 83 USD.
If SOL manages to accept that zone as support, the path to 85 USD makes much more sense because it lines up with new liquidity areas.
If, on the other hand, it loses that region again, we could see another rotation before trying to continue.
📌 For now, I’m still seeing a bullish structure, but confirmation is always given by price—not by our expectations.
Do you think SOL has the fuel to go after 85 USD, or do you think it needs a correction first?
What a lovely and desirable scenario.
But... does the market really support that idea?
For now, I see several interesting points:
✅ The structure is still bullish.
✅ Price is rising with orderly pullbacks, without completely vertical moves.
✅ Open interest didn’t spike along with the price. That lowers the likelihood that all the momentum is driven purely by leverage.
✅ Funding remains relatively balanced. There’s no sign of the kind of euphoria that’s often seen near short-term tops.
Also, in the last 24 hours, about 4 times more short positions were liquidated than long ones—something consistent with a move driven by a squeeze while sellers got trapped.
Now then...
The next important test is between 82 and 83 USD.
If SOL manages to accept that zone as support, the path to 85 USD makes much more sense because it lines up with new liquidity areas.
If, on the other hand, it loses that region again, we could see another rotation before trying to continue.
📌 For now, I’m still seeing a bullish structure, but confirmation is always given by price—not by our expectations.
Do you think SOL has the fuel to go after 85 USD, or do you think it needs a correction first?
🚨 Will ETH reach $1800?
There are 4 data points that make me think it might.
Not because I believe the market "has to get there."
But because, for now, the context is aligned.
When a move is supported by structure and not by hype, I pay much closer attention to it.
These are the four things I’m looking at today.
1️⃣ The structure is still bullish.
On the 4H timeframe and smaller ones, ETH continues to form higher highs and higher lows.
Each pullback finds buyers, and so far the corrections have been orderly.
2️⃣ Open interest is increasing... but not exploding.
OI is rising alongside the price.
That means capital is entering the market, but without that explosive growth that usually shows up when everyone starts over-leveraging.
For now, the move looks pretty healthy.
3️⃣ Funding is still under control.
Yes, it’s positive.
But it’s still far from those levels where the market gets euphoric and it feels like the only button that exists is the "Long" button.
And paradoxically, I like that more.
4️⃣ Shorts are still paying for the party.
In the last few hours, liquidations have still been mostly short positions.
Part of the momentum comes from a short squeeze, but I still don’t see a flood of buyers chasing the price out of FOMO.
Can it correct?
Of course.
Strong trends also need to pause.
In fact, orderly corrections often strengthen a trend rather than destroy it.
That’s why today I’m not fixated on the 1800 number.
I’m much more interested in how it gets there.
As long as I see:
✅ Bullish structure
✅ OI rising gradually
✅ Funding without euphoria
✅ Healthy corrections
I think the market has reasons to keep looking for higher zones.
This isn’t a prediction.
It’s how I read the context with the data we have today.
The market will always have the final word. 📈🧉
$ETH
There are 4 data points that make me think it might.
Not because I believe the market "has to get there."
But because, for now, the context is aligned.
When a move is supported by structure and not by hype, I pay much closer attention to it.
These are the four things I’m looking at today.
1️⃣ The structure is still bullish.
On the 4H timeframe and smaller ones, ETH continues to form higher highs and higher lows.
Each pullback finds buyers, and so far the corrections have been orderly.
2️⃣ Open interest is increasing... but not exploding.
OI is rising alongside the price.
That means capital is entering the market, but without that explosive growth that usually shows up when everyone starts over-leveraging.
For now, the move looks pretty healthy.
3️⃣ Funding is still under control.
Yes, it’s positive.
But it’s still far from those levels where the market gets euphoric and it feels like the only button that exists is the "Long" button.
And paradoxically, I like that more.
4️⃣ Shorts are still paying for the party.
In the last few hours, liquidations have still been mostly short positions.
Part of the momentum comes from a short squeeze, but I still don’t see a flood of buyers chasing the price out of FOMO.
Can it correct?
Of course.
Strong trends also need to pause.
In fact, orderly corrections often strengthen a trend rather than destroy it.
That’s why today I’m not fixated on the 1800 number.
I’m much more interested in how it gets there.
As long as I see:
✅ Bullish structure
✅ OI rising gradually
✅ Funding without euphoria
✅ Healthy corrections
I think the market has reasons to keep looking for higher zones.
This isn’t a prediction.
It’s how I read the context with the data we have today.
The market will always have the final word. 📈🧉
$ETH
💥 DOES THE FEAR & GREED INDEX REALLY SERVE ANY PURPOSE?
We didn’t just give something an elegant name—it’s actually much simpler than that.
If you’ve been in crypto for a while...
You’ve probably seen that the market was in “Extreme Fear” or “Extreme Greed.”
And the same theories always show up.
🟢 “It’s time to buy.”
🔴 “It’s time to sell.”
🟠 “Do exactly the opposite. When there’s greed, the whales sell. When there’s fear, they buy.”
But...
Does it really work like that?
First, let’s understand what it measures.
The Fear & Greed Index tries to summarize market sentiment into a single number using variables like:
📌 Volatility.
📌 Market momentum and volume.
📌 Bitcoin dominance.
📌 Search trends (Google Trends).
That is...
It’s not trying to tell you what’s going to happen.
It’s trying to show how the market feels right now.
And that’s, for me, its biggest limitation.
When the index shows Extreme Greed...
Bitcoin has usually already gone up.
And when it shows Extreme Fear...
Many times the big drop has already happened.
In other words...
It describes the present.
It doesn’t necessarily anticipate the future.
📌 My conclusion:
Personally, I don’t use it.
If I had to choose between looking at the Fear & Greed or analyzing the chart...
I’ll take the chart every day.
I prefer to understand structure, liquidity, volume, and the market context.
Fear & Greed can be interesting to see what most people feel.
But the market doesn’t buy because there’s greed.
Greed appears because the market has already gone up.
And fear...
Appears when the drop has already happened.
That’s why, when making decisions, I prefer to analyze what the price is doing—not how people feel.
💬 Do you use it to decide your trades, or do you just look at it out of curiosity?
We didn’t just give something an elegant name—it’s actually much simpler than that.
If you’ve been in crypto for a while...
You’ve probably seen that the market was in “Extreme Fear” or “Extreme Greed.”
And the same theories always show up.
🟢 “It’s time to buy.”
🔴 “It’s time to sell.”
🟠 “Do exactly the opposite. When there’s greed, the whales sell. When there’s fear, they buy.”
But...
Does it really work like that?
First, let’s understand what it measures.
The Fear & Greed Index tries to summarize market sentiment into a single number using variables like:
📌 Volatility.
📌 Market momentum and volume.
📌 Bitcoin dominance.
📌 Search trends (Google Trends).
That is...
It’s not trying to tell you what’s going to happen.
It’s trying to show how the market feels right now.
And that’s, for me, its biggest limitation.
When the index shows Extreme Greed...
Bitcoin has usually already gone up.
And when it shows Extreme Fear...
Many times the big drop has already happened.
In other words...
It describes the present.
It doesn’t necessarily anticipate the future.
📌 My conclusion:
Personally, I don’t use it.
If I had to choose between looking at the Fear & Greed or analyzing the chart...
I’ll take the chart every day.
I prefer to understand structure, liquidity, volume, and the market context.
Fear & Greed can be interesting to see what most people feel.
But the market doesn’t buy because there’s greed.
Greed appears because the market has already gone up.
And fear...
Appears when the drop has already happened.
That’s why, when making decisions, I prefer to analyze what the price is doing—not how people feel.
💬 Do you use it to decide your trades, or do you just look at it out of curiosity?
💥 THE PRICE DOESN’T TELL YOU THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT A CRYPTO
And I think that’s one of the most common mistakes when someone starts investing.
Every time a new project comes up...
I always read comments like:
"It’s only 0.20 USD."
"It’s cheap."
"If it hits $10, I’ll be a millionaire."
But...
What if the price were the least important piece of information of all?
Before buying a cryptocurrency, I try to answer several questions:
📌 What problem does it solve?
📌 What is it really used for?
📌 What about its tokenomics? Will more coins be issued? Will there be major unlocks?
📌 What is its Market Cap and its FDV?
📌 Does it have enough liquidity?
📌 Are developers building on that network?
📌 Does it have an active community and real users?
📌 Is its ecosystem still growing?
📌 Is it a secure and decentralized network?
📌 Does its economic model seem sustainable over time?
Only then...
I look at the price.
Because a cryptocurrency can be worth $0.10...
And still be much more expensive than another one worth $1,000.
The price, by itself, doesn’t tell you whether a project has potential.
It only tells you how much one unit costs.
And those two things are very different.
👀 In the next few days, I want to do something different.
I don’t want to tell you which cryptocurrency to buy.
I want to show you how to analyze a project before investing a single dollar.
Then we’ll apply that same analysis to BTC, ETH, SOL, BNB, XRP, and other projects.
💬 What’s the first thing you look at when you discover a new cryptocurrency?
And I think that’s one of the most common mistakes when someone starts investing.
Every time a new project comes up...
I always read comments like:
"It’s only 0.20 USD."
"It’s cheap."
"If it hits $10, I’ll be a millionaire."
But...
What if the price were the least important piece of information of all?
Before buying a cryptocurrency, I try to answer several questions:
📌 What problem does it solve?
📌 What is it really used for?
📌 What about its tokenomics? Will more coins be issued? Will there be major unlocks?
📌 What is its Market Cap and its FDV?
📌 Does it have enough liquidity?
📌 Are developers building on that network?
📌 Does it have an active community and real users?
📌 Is its ecosystem still growing?
📌 Is it a secure and decentralized network?
📌 Does its economic model seem sustainable over time?
Only then...
I look at the price.
Because a cryptocurrency can be worth $0.10...
And still be much more expensive than another one worth $1,000.
The price, by itself, doesn’t tell you whether a project has potential.
It only tells you how much one unit costs.
And those two things are very different.
👀 In the next few days, I want to do something different.
I don’t want to tell you which cryptocurrency to buy.
I want to show you how to analyze a project before investing a single dollar.
Then we’ll apply that same analysis to BTC, ETH, SOL, BNB, XRP, and other projects.
💬 What’s the first thing you look at when you discover a new cryptocurrency?
Log in to explore more content