Palpatine
5.6k Posts
Palpatine
Strategy, vision, and market analysis from the dark side of crypto. Where others see chaos, I see pattern.
Open Trade
Frequent Trader
4.7 Years
601 Following
618 Followers
4.7K+ Liked
Posts
Portfolio
All
Quotes
Videos
ZKC IS LOSING MOMENTUM — BUT WE DON’T CHASE THE DROP
$ZKC ran from roughly 0.039–0.040 to 0.0708, a massive expansion while the broader market stayed relatively quiet.
Now the picture is changing.
Price is already ~16% below the high, momentum has weakened, Smart Money and whale shorts around 0.061–0.062 are moving into profit, and recent professional flow has turned increasingly defensive.
But there is one reason not to rush:
funding remains deeply negative and spot is still absorbing.
That means another squeeze/rebound is completely possible before the real mean reversion.
OUR ZKC MAP
🟠 PROBE ZONE: 0.0595–0.0602
🟠 MAIN ENTRY ZONE: 0.0612–0.0625
🟠 BETTER SQUEEZE ENTRY: 0.0635–0.0650
We prefer a rejection from these areas rather than blindly selling weakness.
🟢 TP1: 0.0555–0.0560
🟢 TP2: 0.0510–0.0520
🟢 TP3: 0.0470–0.0480
🟢 RUNNER: 0.0390–0.0400
🔴 INVALIDATION ZONE: 0.0665–0.0708
A 1H recovery above 0.0665 with OI expanding would force us to reassess. Breaking the 0.0708 high would invalidate the current mean-reversion structure.
The thesis is simple:
REAL CATALYST → SPECULATIVE EXTENSION → DISTRIBUTION → POSSIBLE SQUEEZE → MEAN REVERSION
We saw why patience mattered with $ONG and $BMT.
Now ZKC has to prove that the buyers are actually finished.
LET THE REBOUND GIVE THE ENTRY.
DON’T GIVE THE MARKET YOUR LIQUIDITY.
$ZKC ran from roughly 0.039–0.040 to 0.0708, a massive expansion while the broader market stayed relatively quiet.
Now the picture is changing.
Price is already ~16% below the high, momentum has weakened, Smart Money and whale shorts around 0.061–0.062 are moving into profit, and recent professional flow has turned increasingly defensive.
But there is one reason not to rush:
funding remains deeply negative and spot is still absorbing.
That means another squeeze/rebound is completely possible before the real mean reversion.
OUR ZKC MAP
🟠 PROBE ZONE: 0.0595–0.0602
🟠 MAIN ENTRY ZONE: 0.0612–0.0625
🟠 BETTER SQUEEZE ENTRY: 0.0635–0.0650
We prefer a rejection from these areas rather than blindly selling weakness.
🟢 TP1: 0.0555–0.0560
🟢 TP2: 0.0510–0.0520
🟢 TP3: 0.0470–0.0480
🟢 RUNNER: 0.0390–0.0400
🔴 INVALIDATION ZONE: 0.0665–0.0708
A 1H recovery above 0.0665 with OI expanding would force us to reassess. Breaking the 0.0708 high would invalidate the current mean-reversion structure.
The thesis is simple:
REAL CATALYST → SPECULATIVE EXTENSION → DISTRIBUTION → POSSIBLE SQUEEZE → MEAN REVERSION
We saw why patience mattered with $ONG and $BMT.
Now ZKC has to prove that the buyers are actually finished.
LET THE REBOUND GIVE THE ENTRY.
DON’T GIVE THE MARKET YOUR LIQUIDITY.
Verified
THE U.S. JUST MOVED A GIANT PIECE ON THE OIL BOARD
Donald Trump announced what he called “the largest oil deal in history”: the U.S. would gain majority control over more than 65 billion barrels of Venezuela’s proved reserves, through a joint structure with private investments that could approach US$100 billion.
That is roughly 22% of Venezuela’s reserves, the largest on the planet. But there’s one detail that often gets lost behind the number:
#OilQuality matters.
Much of Venezuela’s crude is heavy and high in sulfur. It is not, barrel for barrel, equivalent to the light oil from other basins. For the U.S., that’s also not a coincidence: many Gulf refineries were designed specifically to process heavy crudes.
Trump says the deal will double U.S. reserves and help reduce fuel prices in the long run. The problem is that getting Venezuelan production back requires years, infrastructure, and a great deal of capital. The full legal terms are also not public yet.
The biggest takeaway is geopolitical
The U.S. is not only securing oil. It is securing supply, influence, and decades of energy in its own hemisphere.
And for producers like Argentina, energy competition in the Americas has just become a lot more interesting.
Donald Trump announced what he called “the largest oil deal in history”: the U.S. would gain majority control over more than 65 billion barrels of Venezuela’s proved reserves, through a joint structure with private investments that could approach US$100 billion.
That is roughly 22% of Venezuela’s reserves, the largest on the planet. But there’s one detail that often gets lost behind the number:
#OilQuality matters.
Much of Venezuela’s crude is heavy and high in sulfur. It is not, barrel for barrel, equivalent to the light oil from other basins. For the U.S., that’s also not a coincidence: many Gulf refineries were designed specifically to process heavy crudes.
Trump says the deal will double U.S. reserves and help reduce fuel prices in the long run. The problem is that getting Venezuelan production back requires years, infrastructure, and a great deal of capital. The full legal terms are also not public yet.
The biggest takeaway is geopolitical
The U.S. is not only securing oil. It is securing supply, influence, and decades of energy in its own hemisphere.
And for producers like Argentina, energy competition in the Americas has just become a lot more interesting.
🇦🇷 AR vs 🇪🇸 ES: THE THING NOBODY WANTS TO EXPLAIN
Leandro Paredes broke the silence and said what many have been asking since the final: “They gave Gavi one, and he’s the one who gives me a punch in the chest”.
Paredes: 10 matches + US$90,000.
Molina: 7 matches.
Gavi: 1 match + US$30,000.
You don’t need to invent a conspiracy to wonder if the punishment was the same.
Argentina 🇦🇷 AR has already appealed. And while from Spain 🇪🇸 ES they’re still talking about how Argentines “don’t know how to lose,” the difference between 10 and 1 is still there—written by FIFA itself.
That’s why #algopaso keeps sparking debate: not because a theory has to be true, but because each new piece of information leaves more questions than answers.
Paredes lost the final. That’s not up for debate.
What can be discussed is why one player received ten bans and the other got one.
And meanwhile, the market is pretty quiet: today, the few that really stand out are $NIL +32.8%, $DEXE +17.5%, and $ONG +16%.
Not much green. A lot of controversy.
Leandro Paredes broke the silence and said what many have been asking since the final: “They gave Gavi one, and he’s the one who gives me a punch in the chest”.
Paredes: 10 matches + US$90,000.
Molina: 7 matches.
Gavi: 1 match + US$30,000.
You don’t need to invent a conspiracy to wonder if the punishment was the same.
Argentina 🇦🇷 AR has already appealed. And while from Spain 🇪🇸 ES they’re still talking about how Argentines “don’t know how to lose,” the difference between 10 and 1 is still there—written by FIFA itself.
That’s why #algopaso keeps sparking debate: not because a theory has to be true, but because each new piece of information leaves more questions than answers.
Paredes lost the final. That’s not up for debate.
What can be discussed is why one player received ten bans and the other got one.
And meanwhile, the market is pretty quiet: today, the few that really stand out are $NIL +32.8%, $DEXE +17.5%, and $ONG +16%.
Not much green. A lot of controversy.
BMT FOLLOWED THE PLAN — TP3 HIT
$BMT played out almost exactly as mapped.
If you took profits through TP3, that was already a very generous move.
Now price has bounced.
It may be nothing more than a dead cat bounce after the drain — but I’m not assuming that yet.
The first short already paid.
Now the job is simple:
DON’T CHASE. WATCH THE REBOUND.
If BMT fails to recover structure, momentum weakens again and sellers return, I’ll be watching for another short opportunity.
The best trades are often not the first move.
Sometimes the market gives you a second entry after everyone thinks the move is over.
PLAN → EXECUTION → PROFITS → RESET.
$BMT $ONG
$BMT played out almost exactly as mapped.
If you took profits through TP3, that was already a very generous move.
Now price has bounced.
It may be nothing more than a dead cat bounce after the drain — but I’m not assuming that yet.
The first short already paid.
Now the job is simple:
DON’T CHASE. WATCH THE REBOUND.
If BMT fails to recover structure, momentum weakens again and sellers return, I’ll be watching for another short opportunity.
The best trades are often not the first move.
Sometimes the market gives you a second entry after everyone thinks the move is over.
PLAN → EXECUTION → PROFITS → RESET.
$BMT $ONG
Palpatine
·
--
BMT MAY SQUEEZE ONE MORE TIME — AND THAT COULD GIVE US THE BETTER SHORT
We’ve seen this pattern before with $BMT and later with $ONG :
the short looks obvious → funding turns extremely negative → shorts pile in → price squeezes higher → then the real mean reversion begins.
BMT is now extremely extended, but funding is around -11%, which changes the immediate plan.
That level of negative funding means the market is heavily tilted short.
So instead of fighting the squeeze, we’re expanding our entry zone.
OUR UPDATED PLAN
🟧 SHORT WATCH: 0.027 → 0.0300
Not one blind entry.
We want rejection, weakening momentum and Smart Money / whales continuing to sell into strength.
If BMT squeezes toward 0.029–0.030, that could actually give us a much better risk/reward entry than shorting too early.
🟢 TP1: 0.0265
🟢 TP2: 0.0248
🟢 TP3: 0.0235–0.0238
🟢 DEEP MEAN REVERSION: 0.0215 → 0.0200 → 0.0180
🔴 INVALIDATION: acceptance above 0.031–0.032 with OI still expanding
The setup is attractive.
But extremely negative funding tells us something important:
THE CROWD IS ALREADY SHORT.
And when everyone sees the same trade, the market often squeezes them first.
So we wait.
LET THE SQUEEZE GIVE US THE ENTRY — THEN TRADE THE DRAIN.
$ONG $BTC
We’ve seen this pattern before with $BMT and later with $ONG :
the short looks obvious → funding turns extremely negative → shorts pile in → price squeezes higher → then the real mean reversion begins.
BMT is now extremely extended, but funding is around -11%, which changes the immediate plan.
That level of negative funding means the market is heavily tilted short.
So instead of fighting the squeeze, we’re expanding our entry zone.
OUR UPDATED PLAN
🟧 SHORT WATCH: 0.027 → 0.0300
Not one blind entry.
We want rejection, weakening momentum and Smart Money / whales continuing to sell into strength.
If BMT squeezes toward 0.029–0.030, that could actually give us a much better risk/reward entry than shorting too early.
🟢 TP1: 0.0265
🟢 TP2: 0.0248
🟢 TP3: 0.0235–0.0238
🟢 DEEP MEAN REVERSION: 0.0215 → 0.0200 → 0.0180
🔴 INVALIDATION: acceptance above 0.031–0.032 with OI still expanding
The setup is attractive.
But extremely negative funding tells us something important:
THE CROWD IS ALREADY SHORT.
And when everyone sees the same trade, the market often squeezes them first.
So we wait.
LET THE SQUEEZE GIVE US THE ENTRY — THEN TRADE THE DRAIN.
$ONG $BTC
BMT MAY SQUEEZE ONE MORE TIME — AND THAT COULD GIVE US THE BETTER SHORT
We’ve seen this pattern before with $BMT and later with $ONG :
the short looks obvious → funding turns extremely negative → shorts pile in → price squeezes higher → then the real mean reversion begins.
BMT is now extremely extended, but funding is around -11%, which changes the immediate plan.
That level of negative funding means the market is heavily tilted short.
So instead of fighting the squeeze, we’re expanding our entry zone.
OUR UPDATED PLAN
🟧 SHORT WATCH: 0.027 → 0.0300
Not one blind entry.
We want rejection, weakening momentum and Smart Money / whales continuing to sell into strength.
If BMT squeezes toward 0.029–0.030, that could actually give us a much better risk/reward entry than shorting too early.
🟢 TP1: 0.0265
🟢 TP2: 0.0248
🟢 TP3: 0.0235–0.0238
🟢 DEEP MEAN REVERSION: 0.0215 → 0.0200 → 0.0180
🔴 INVALIDATION: acceptance above 0.031–0.032 with OI still expanding
The setup is attractive.
But extremely negative funding tells us something important:
THE CROWD IS ALREADY SHORT.
And when everyone sees the same trade, the market often squeezes them first.
So we wait.
LET THE SQUEEZE GIVE US THE ENTRY — THEN TRADE THE DRAIN.
$ONG $BTC
We’ve seen this pattern before with $BMT and later with $ONG :
the short looks obvious → funding turns extremely negative → shorts pile in → price squeezes higher → then the real mean reversion begins.
BMT is now extremely extended, but funding is around -11%, which changes the immediate plan.
That level of negative funding means the market is heavily tilted short.
So instead of fighting the squeeze, we’re expanding our entry zone.
OUR UPDATED PLAN
🟧 SHORT WATCH: 0.027 → 0.0300
Not one blind entry.
We want rejection, weakening momentum and Smart Money / whales continuing to sell into strength.
If BMT squeezes toward 0.029–0.030, that could actually give us a much better risk/reward entry than shorting too early.
🟢 TP1: 0.0265
🟢 TP2: 0.0248
🟢 TP3: 0.0235–0.0238
🟢 DEEP MEAN REVERSION: 0.0215 → 0.0200 → 0.0180
🔴 INVALIDATION: acceptance above 0.031–0.032 with OI still expanding
The setup is attractive.
But extremely negative funding tells us something important:
THE CROWD IS ALREADY SHORT.
And when everyone sees the same trade, the market often squeezes them first.
So we wait.
LET THE SQUEEZE GIVE US THE ENTRY — THEN TRADE THE DRAIN.
$ONG $BTC
🇦🇷 AR NO FUE “UN PARTIDO MÁS”
They tried to sell us that what happened in England 🇬🇧 EN was just football.
Lies.
The flag bothered them. And it bothered them so much that, from that day on, Argentina began paying the price off the field.
In Spain 🇪🇸 ES, San Mamés booed the World Cup. Not a club, not a player: the Cup. Because even there they know that #algopaso and that that World Cup left wounds, doubts, and too many uncomfortable things for the official narrative.
In England 🇬🇧 EN, Enzo Fernández is booed as if he had committed a crime. And now another chapter appears with Franco Colapinto: the FIA ruins Zandvoort with disputed penalties and then removes his spotlight in a vote where the public had already put him at the top. There’s always a “specialist,” a “technical” criterion, or a convenient explanation.
What a coincidence: when the one harmed is Argentina 🇦🇷 AR, regulation is always “plenty.”
When they benefit others, they ask for context.
Not everyone will admit it. But more and more people see it.
It wasn’t just a flag. It wasn’t just a match. It wasn’t just sport.
They tried to sell us that what happened in England 🇬🇧 EN was just football.
Lies.
The flag bothered them. And it bothered them so much that, from that day on, Argentina began paying the price off the field.
In Spain 🇪🇸 ES, San Mamés booed the World Cup. Not a club, not a player: the Cup. Because even there they know that #algopaso and that that World Cup left wounds, doubts, and too many uncomfortable things for the official narrative.
In England 🇬🇧 EN, Enzo Fernández is booed as if he had committed a crime. And now another chapter appears with Franco Colapinto: the FIA ruins Zandvoort with disputed penalties and then removes his spotlight in a vote where the public had already put him at the top. There’s always a “specialist,” a “technical” criterion, or a convenient explanation.
What a coincidence: when the one harmed is Argentina 🇦🇷 AR, regulation is always “plenty.”
When they benefit others, they ask for context.
Not everyone will admit it. But more and more people see it.
It wasn’t just a flag. It wasn’t just a match. It wasn’t just sport.
A ROBOT JUST BEAT USAIN BOLT’S 100M RECORD
China’s humanoid robot Tiangong Ultra reportedly ran 100 meters in 9.39 seconds.
Usain Bolt’s legendary human record: 9.58 seconds.
Let that sink in.
And this is bigger than one sprint.
More than 2,000 humanoid robots from 16 countries are now competing in Beijing — not just running, but also performing industrial tasks, service work, and real-world autonomous functions.
For years, the big question was:
Will AI replace human jobs?
Now the better question may be:
HOW FAST WILL AI GET A BODY?
This is the moment AI stops being just software on a screen and starts becoming something physical, fast, and impossible to ignore.
Markets should be watching this closely, because whenever a technology shifts from theory to visible reality, capital usually follows.
That is why this story matters far beyond sports.
AI is no longer just thinking. It is starting to move.
$TAO $VIRTUAL $FET
China’s humanoid robot Tiangong Ultra reportedly ran 100 meters in 9.39 seconds.
Usain Bolt’s legendary human record: 9.58 seconds.
Let that sink in.
And this is bigger than one sprint.
More than 2,000 humanoid robots from 16 countries are now competing in Beijing — not just running, but also performing industrial tasks, service work, and real-world autonomous functions.
For years, the big question was:
Will AI replace human jobs?
Now the better question may be:
HOW FAST WILL AI GET A BODY?
This is the moment AI stops being just software on a screen and starts becoming something physical, fast, and impossible to ignore.
Markets should be watching this closely, because whenever a technology shifts from theory to visible reality, capital usually follows.
That is why this story matters far beyond sports.
AI is no longer just thinking. It is starting to move.
$TAO $VIRTUAL $FET
🇦🇷 FIA… OR MA-FIA? THEY RUINED FRANCO AT ZANDVOORT
Franco Colapinto started 14th in the Dutch GP, made a great start, and managed to get up to 10th, in the points-paying positions.
Then the FIA showed up.
For an infraction with a yellow flag after the Verstappen accident, he received a drive-through: from fighting for points to dropping to last place in seconds.
Should safety be respected? Of course.
Was the punishment proportional? That’s where the discussion begins.
Lindblad also received the same penalty, so this episode alone doesn’t prove a targeted persecution of Argentina. But after everything that’s been lived through around the World Championship, the subsequent penalties, and the tone of certain European media, every new controversial decision fuels a feeling that’s hard to ignore.
Formula 1 should be decided among drivers, cars, and stopwatches.
Not in an office.
Because when the rulebook starts to weigh more than the race, the question comes up on its own:
FIA… OR MA-FIA?
$ALPINE
$YPF.US
Franco Colapinto started 14th in the Dutch GP, made a great start, and managed to get up to 10th, in the points-paying positions.
Then the FIA showed up.
For an infraction with a yellow flag after the Verstappen accident, he received a drive-through: from fighting for points to dropping to last place in seconds.
Should safety be respected? Of course.
Was the punishment proportional? That’s where the discussion begins.
Lindblad also received the same penalty, so this episode alone doesn’t prove a targeted persecution of Argentina. But after everything that’s been lived through around the World Championship, the subsequent penalties, and the tone of certain European media, every new controversial decision fuels a feeling that’s hard to ignore.
Formula 1 should be decided among drivers, cars, and stopwatches.
Not in an office.
Because when the rulebook starts to weigh more than the race, the question comes up on its own:
FIA… OR MA-FIA?
$ALPINE
$YPF.US
🇦🇷 IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO LOSE… OR DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING? 🇪🇸
From Spain 🇪🇸 they talk about “a harsh punishment for not knowing how to lose,” and some even call for bigger penalties for Argentina. Fine. Then let’s talk about everything.
Paredes got 10 matches, Molina 7, and Gavi just 1. That difference, at the very least, calls for debate. And the final itself also left very controversial decisions: Argentina finished with ten, there was an action by Cucurella that many considered deserving of a red card, and a last play in the box that a large part of the Argentine crowd (and those who know football) keeps seeing as a penalty.
That’s why #algopaso doesn’t mean asserting a conspiracy. It means asking why there were so many strange situations around such a tight final.
Spain were the champions, yes. But after the final whistle, much of the cameras and the world conversation kept focusing on Messi and Argentina.
If people demand “knowing how to lose,” then we also have to accept that the standard, the punishments, and the refereeing decisions can be debated.
Argentina lost. That’s a fact.
That everything was unquestionable, no.
From Spain 🇪🇸 they talk about “a harsh punishment for not knowing how to lose,” and some even call for bigger penalties for Argentina. Fine. Then let’s talk about everything.
Paredes got 10 matches, Molina 7, and Gavi just 1. That difference, at the very least, calls for debate. And the final itself also left very controversial decisions: Argentina finished with ten, there was an action by Cucurella that many considered deserving of a red card, and a last play in the box that a large part of the Argentine crowd (and those who know football) keeps seeing as a penalty.
That’s why #algopaso doesn’t mean asserting a conspiracy. It means asking why there were so many strange situations around such a tight final.
Spain were the champions, yes. But after the final whistle, much of the cameras and the world conversation kept focusing on Messi and Argentina.
If people demand “knowing how to lose,” then we also have to accept that the standard, the punishments, and the refereeing decisions can be debated.
Argentina lost. That’s a fact.
That everything was unquestionable, no.
“IN ENGLAND IT WAS JUST ANOTHER GAME.” SAFE? 🇦🇷
After the World Cup, many said that mixing Malvinas with football had been unnecessary. That England was simply another rival.
More than a month later, Enzo Fernández was booed in England again. British press presented him as “public enemy number one,” and even the Falklands flag appeared again in the stands.
So maybe it wasn’t “just another game.”
Argentina ended up losing the final and #algopaso in that match, and Enzo was sent off. Did the flag have a sporting cost? It’s debatable and we probably will never be able to prove it.
But it produced something concrete: Malvinas was back on the international agenda, in a conversation that completely went beyond the 90 minutes.
The semifinal ended.
The debate didn’t.
And when an action keeps generating reactions weeks later, it’s because it touched something far deeper than football.
We can debate whether it was correct, ill-timed, or unnecessary.
But saying it “meant nothing” is already pretty hard to defend.
Was it worth the symbolic and sporting cost?
#MalvinasArgentinas #EnzoFernandez
After the World Cup, many said that mixing Malvinas with football had been unnecessary. That England was simply another rival.
More than a month later, Enzo Fernández was booed in England again. British press presented him as “public enemy number one,” and even the Falklands flag appeared again in the stands.
So maybe it wasn’t “just another game.”
Argentina ended up losing the final and #algopaso in that match, and Enzo was sent off. Did the flag have a sporting cost? It’s debatable and we probably will never be able to prove it.
But it produced something concrete: Malvinas was back on the international agenda, in a conversation that completely went beyond the 90 minutes.
The semifinal ended.
The debate didn’t.
And when an action keeps generating reactions weeks later, it’s because it touched something far deeper than football.
We can debate whether it was correct, ill-timed, or unnecessary.
But saying it “meant nothing” is already pretty hard to defend.
Was it worth the symbolic and sporting cost?
#MalvinasArgentinas #EnzoFernandez
Verified
ELON MUSK MOCKED THE F-35. TWO YEARS LATER, DRONES ARE REWRITING WARFARE.
In 2024, Elon Musk argued that spending fortunes on manned fighters like the F-35 made less sense as autonomous drones became cheaper, smarter and easier to deploy at scale.
It sounded extreme.
Then came Ukraine.
Then Iran.
Today we are watching drones attack logistics, air defenses, energy infrastructure and targets hundreds of kilometers away — often at a fraction of the cost of the systems used to stop them.
That does NOT make the F-35 obsolete.
It changes the equation.
And three stocks represent the battle over what comes next:
$LMT — Lockheed Martin: the F-35 and the traditional high-end aerospace model.
$PLTR — Palantir: battlefield data, AI and software increasingly connecting sensors, intelligence and autonomous systems.
$NVDA — NVIDIA: the computing layer behind the broader AI and autonomy revolution.
The future may not be fighter jets OR drones.
It may be expensive stealth aircraft commanding swarms of cheaper autonomous weapons.
Ukraine and Iran are turning that theory into a real-world stress test.
Musk may have been wrong about the death of the fighter jet.
But he may have been early about something bigger:
THE NEXT ARMS RACE COULD BE ABOUT WHO CAN BUILD, CONNECT AND REPLACE INTELLIGENT DRONES FASTER THAN THE ENEMY CAN DESTROY THEM.
In 2024, Elon Musk argued that spending fortunes on manned fighters like the F-35 made less sense as autonomous drones became cheaper, smarter and easier to deploy at scale.
It sounded extreme.
Then came Ukraine.
Then Iran.
Today we are watching drones attack logistics, air defenses, energy infrastructure and targets hundreds of kilometers away — often at a fraction of the cost of the systems used to stop them.
That does NOT make the F-35 obsolete.
It changes the equation.
And three stocks represent the battle over what comes next:
$LMT — Lockheed Martin: the F-35 and the traditional high-end aerospace model.
$PLTR — Palantir: battlefield data, AI and software increasingly connecting sensors, intelligence and autonomous systems.
$NVDA — NVIDIA: the computing layer behind the broader AI and autonomy revolution.
The future may not be fighter jets OR drones.
It may be expensive stealth aircraft commanding swarms of cheaper autonomous weapons.
Ukraine and Iran are turning that theory into a real-world stress test.
Musk may have been wrong about the death of the fighter jet.
But he may have been early about something bigger:
THE NEXT ARMS RACE COULD BE ABOUT WHO CAN BUILD, CONNECT AND REPLACE INTELLIGENT DRONES FASTER THAN THE ENEMY CAN DESTROY THEM.
USD 51.000 MILLION: VACA MUERTA WANTS TO PLAY IN ANOTHER LEAGUE 🇦🇷🔥
YPF has just presented RIGI Argentina LNG, the largest project in its history and the largest amount submitted so far to the scheme.
The scale is impressive:
• USD 51.000 million in accumulated investment
• nearly USD 29.000 million through 2031
• initial production of 12 million tons of LNG per year
• possibility to scale up to 18 million
• nearly USD 10.000 million per year in exports over two decades
• a 527 km pipeline from Neuquén to Río Negro
• two floating liquefaction units
• about USD 15.000 million planned for national suppliers
This is no longer just about increasing production.
It’s about building the infrastructure to turn Vaca Muerta gas into an exportable product at a global scale.
And while the project is being defined, I’m also looking at how the Argentine energy market is reacting:
YPF: USD 49,45
Pampa Energía: USD 79,11
Vista: USD 66,19
These are not three identical bets, and not all of them participate in the same project, but they represent different exposure levels to Argentina’s energy growth.
The question is beginning to change:
Before, we debated whether Vaca Muerta could transform the energy mix.
Now we’re starting to discuss how much Argentina could be worth if it actually manages to export it to the world.
#OilQuality #ArgentinaPower
YPF has just presented RIGI Argentina LNG, the largest project in its history and the largest amount submitted so far to the scheme.
The scale is impressive:
• USD 51.000 million in accumulated investment
• nearly USD 29.000 million through 2031
• initial production of 12 million tons of LNG per year
• possibility to scale up to 18 million
• nearly USD 10.000 million per year in exports over two decades
• a 527 km pipeline from Neuquén to Río Negro
• two floating liquefaction units
• about USD 15.000 million planned for national suppliers
This is no longer just about increasing production.
It’s about building the infrastructure to turn Vaca Muerta gas into an exportable product at a global scale.
And while the project is being defined, I’m also looking at how the Argentine energy market is reacting:
YPF: USD 49,45
Pampa Energía: USD 79,11
Vista: USD 66,19
These are not three identical bets, and not all of them participate in the same project, but they represent different exposure levels to Argentina’s energy growth.
The question is beginning to change:
Before, we debated whether Vaca Muerta could transform the energy mix.
Now we’re starting to discuss how much Argentina could be worth if it actually manages to export it to the world.
#OilQuality #ArgentinaPower
TODAY’S #1 GAINER. TOMORROW’S #1 LOSER?
We have seen this movie before.
$TUT was recently one of the market’s hottest pumps. Today it is sitting at -45.65%.
But there is an important lesson: I did NOT short TUT during the vertical phase. Its derivatives structure showed unusual volatility and an extreme imbalance. The eventual collapse does not mean an early short was correct.
$BONK taught the opposite lesson: a vertical pump can keep extending long enough to destroy traders who short simply because “it went too high.”
Now today’s #1 gainer is $EDEN at +66.08%.
Will it follow the same path?
I don’t know — and that is exactly the trade.
I would watch:
• OI expanding or diverging
• funding and trapped shorts
• whale flow
• failed higher highs
• 15m/30m momentum
• loss of structure after the FOMO peak
The opportunity is not predicting the exact top.
It is recognizing when momentum turns into distribution.
$BONK punished premature shorts.
$TUT eventually drained violently.
Now $EDEN enters the observation list.
Trade the structure. Not the leaderboard.
We have seen this movie before.
$TUT was recently one of the market’s hottest pumps. Today it is sitting at -45.65%.
But there is an important lesson: I did NOT short TUT during the vertical phase. Its derivatives structure showed unusual volatility and an extreme imbalance. The eventual collapse does not mean an early short was correct.
$BONK taught the opposite lesson: a vertical pump can keep extending long enough to destroy traders who short simply because “it went too high.”
Now today’s #1 gainer is $EDEN at +66.08%.
Will it follow the same path?
I don’t know — and that is exactly the trade.
I would watch:
• OI expanding or diverging
• funding and trapped shorts
• whale flow
• failed higher highs
• 15m/30m momentum
• loss of structure after the FOMO peak
The opportunity is not predicting the exact top.
It is recognizing when momentum turns into distribution.
$BONK punished premature shorts.
$TUT eventually drained violently.
Now $EDEN enters the observation list.
Trade the structure. Not the leaderboard.
Log in to explore more content