game_for_one

Thinking through the CRCL buyers after speaking to a few people, it seems the second and third legs were mostly dumb money. The thesis echoed GME: something shiny to ape into after getting wrecked on alts and months of stablecoin headlines. Fundamentals? P/E multiples? Thrown out entirely.

Classic left curve.
Right curve would’ve been seeing how far retail degeneracy could go and front-running the full-port frenzy.
Midcurvers were stuck debating P/E multiples, saying it’s worse than Tether (which you can’t even buy and isn’t US-endorsed), arguing Coinbase comps, trying to force logic onto something that was never about logic.

People often say “focus on your domain.”
But in narrative trading, your execution zone - when you enter, is just as important as what you trade.

Every new project or narrative has 3 clear legs:

1) The quiet leg: Before the crowd.
Still under the radar: low volume, little attention. This leg is about forming early conviction based on incomplete signals - acting before the narrative is obvious.
It rewards vision, patience, and conviction. You buy when it feels uncomfortable.

2) The expansion leg: The story starts to spread.
The story catches on. Volume picks up, price accelerates.
This leg rewards timing and momentum. You’re no longer early and once you spot it, you have to move.
Position sizing and execution matter. You’re riding the wave with others, so hesitation costs.

3) The saturation leg: Everyone’s watching.
Most know. The trade is crowded, and edge shifts to speed and precision.
Narrative proliferation means reactions are stronger - price moves faster on news, tweets, and rotations. But with more eyes on it, competition is fierce.
At this stage, it’s less about having the best thesis, more about reacting better and faster than others.

You don’t need to trade every part.
Figure out which leg fits your style and lean into it.

Your edge isn’t in doing more. It’s in knowing when you’re most effective.

Resolv looks like it hurt nearly everyone on CT. Early entries, oversized bags, and vague unlock info - punished across the board.

Has to stop at some point, but catching it right has been a killer.

Taking someone else's thesis and deciding to follow it isn’t inherently bad, it’s a step up from blindly chasing a “call” with no reasoning behind it.
But what people often miss is how much of the outcome depends on how you execute it.

You need to align with or consciously adapt their:
- Holding horizon
- Entry method: Are they fully in? Planning to average up or down? Was it a size-on-confirmation play or early sizing?
- Position size: Is this a high-conviction allocation or a small flyer? Can they exit cleanly? Can you, without slippage?
- Risk tolerance: Can they sit through a -20% drawdown? Can you?
- Access & speed: How active are they? Do they have faster access to updates, info flow than you? Can they pivot quicker?

And most importantly, define exit and invalidation conditions:
- Time-based: If the thesis relies on attention or a narrative catching on, how long are you willing to wait before calling it? 1 month? 3 months?
- Price-based: Where does the structure break? What range invalidates your setup?
- Catalyst-based: What if the catalyst leaks early and price runs before the event do you sell into that strength? What if the event passes and the market shrugs, is that your exit?
- Macro override: A changing market regime can negate local setups, sometimes it's not about your trade.

You can’t predict black swans, but you can define how you'll act when chaos hits - predefine response plans, adjust size, or sideline entirely.

Same thesis, different execution = different results.

What’s the most convincing bear case you see that could drive us below the War low?

Getting attached to a coin after a big win or loss is how you lose clarity. You start forcing trades, chasing past outcomes, and ignoring cleaner setups.

That attachment narrows your focus and usually ends in chop. Best move is to detach and stay objective.

Even Labubu is holding on better than ETH

Looking at Base onchain vs Sol here - some clear outliers showing up. Given the nature of buyers and participants, Base likely offers better r-r on this dip if you are scalping.

Looking at Base onchain vs Sol here - some clear outliers showing up. Given the nature of buyers and participants, Base likely offers better r-r on this dip.

Many don’t like to hear this but if you’re lightly exposed and holding small positions you’re not confident in, just staring at the chart hoping for a lucky exit, it’s often better to close them out and go fully flat for a bit.

1) Clears your mental slate. Weak positions clog your thinking and anchor your bias.

2) Breaks the sunk cost loop. Just because you bought doesn’t mean you need to hold.

Flat isn’t passive, it’s a position. It resets your conviction and puts you back in control.

I often get asked why I pick or look at specific "utility" plays over others.

What I’ve found and what’s consistently held true in this space especially as of late is that the best plays, for me and for many others, aren’t just about the tech.
I’m looking for belief systems with liquidity.

The best-performing "utility" plays in crypto aren’t the ones with the best code. They’re the ones that build cults fast.
Tech is secondary. The real product is the story.

Humans think in narrative. We want to belong, signal status, and feel early.
Crypto just wraps that up in a token and gives it a price.

Every top utility play follows the same structure:
- A sticky story that midwits can repeat
- A visible leader either a loud founder or "trustworthy" KOLs (ones with past experience)
- A status game around being early and being right

KTA worked because the voices behind it made it feel inevitable.
ai16z and Kled worked (at least early on) because the founders understood crypto attention - they were outspoken, constantly online, and knew how to shape narrative.

And when these types of plays fail, it’s rarely the tech that breaks. It’s the belief that breaks.

So when scanning for plays a good set of things to ask:
1) Does this have a narrative people want to believe?
2) Is there someone loud enough to anchor the story?
3) Is there social payoff for being early and loud?

If the answers are yes, that’s where flows go.

People don’t buy "tech". They buy narrative, plus faith that the tech eventually lands.
And they hold because selling means quitting the tribe.
Utility matters but only as long as there’s a story, a preacher, and a crowd convinced the code will get there.

Many of you would do better in this environment by dropping the topblasting mindset that often ends in emotional exits when conditions don’t follow through.

Instead, focus on accumulating quality projects with committed teams at the right spots, where the swing potential actually exists.

What’s the most useful new project on Base that you actually find yourself using?
(Similar to how aixbt terminal stood out in the last cohort)

Every summer: timeline fights over low-cap coins, crypto people drifting into stocks, and the usual hindsight “go touch grass” posts. Like clockwork.

Every summer: timeline fights over low-cap coins, crypto people drifting into stocks, and the usual “go touch grass” replies. Like clockwork.

If you're taking any onchain setups on this dip, I'd aim to keep it simple and only touch ones that tick multiple boxes:
- Strong, active, and transparent team
- Recently showed strength and held attention even when the broader market chopped
- Good supply control
- Clear upcoming catalysts - not just potential, but something likely to draw attention soon
- Ideally entering after large seller capitulation

Was reviewing a project with an upcoming catalyst and a strong setup, same patterns appeared as always:

- Some FUD coming from people who sold the alpha to chase some beta, got rinsed, and blamed the main team for farming on the beta without doing any real onchain DD. Pure greed, now masked as outrage.

Many think rotating into a fresh beta is the best R/R but they blur the "risk" part completely. Consider this: even if the team was involved, which project do you think they have more long-term incentive to back? Unless you're in super early, you're likely exit liquidity.

---

- Bottom was made by a “smart” wallet that DCAed into local tops, then in despair dumped six figs at the low for -60%, and on full tilt sent the rest into a rug. A few seconds later, he was left with $2.

Conviction without composure isn’t strength, it’s how big wallets spiral. The size just makes the capitulation more visible.

Do you still have conviction in any of the ICM coins? Have you been adding during the drawdowns and if so, why?

If you have a thesis but get stuck looking at the minute chart and panicking in the short term, then you’re not actually trading your thesis - you’re trading your emotions.

You either trust your framework and size it accordingly, or you admit you don’t have conviction and you’re just reacting.

Pick one.

If you’re still an active bull right now (myself included), there are really two games worth playing:

1) Momentum rotations - still alive, just more fragmented and short-lived. Being early and getting a clean entry matters more than ever. These rotations often play out in a few days, sometimes stretching to a week. Timing, reflexes, and knowing when to exit are key. Don’t get greedy, be nimble.
Even with the right thesis or narrative, if liquidity’s thin and something else offers faster RR, attention shifts. In uncertain conditions, players want quick wins and stack fast your setup can get vamped before it ever hits your “dream” target.

2) Positioning ahead of sentiment shifts - if you think this chop clears in the next 2–4 weeks and the market resumes higher, now’s the time to quietly accumulate. Look for plays that were hot, structurally strong, and could lead again once attention rotates back. Most people get pigeonholed in their own underwater bags and forget to scan for what will actually lead when sentiment flips (it always does).