ALISHBA SOZAR

I’m starting realize that Vitalik was miles ahead of the rest of the industry when he prophesied that highly financialized crypto products have a hard ceiling on value.

Everyone is bullish HYPE rn, and there’s probably good upside potential there for traders. But how much upside realistically?

Let’s say HL becomes wildly successful. It’s mcap would probably trade at some modest multiple of the NASDAQ (~$55B), for arguments sake, let’s say 3x.

That would translate to a hefty $165B dollar HYPE valuation. Thats about a 4-5x price increase from its current level. And that’s on the most optimistic scenario.

Or a more reasonable comparison would be to that of present day Robinhood (~$80B mcap), which is a mere 2x from HYPE’s current Val. Again, this is in a very optimistic scenario.

The reason for this capped upside is that financial applications are but a small part of societal utility. The largest companies in the world sell goods and services unrelated to finance.

Google - An internet and digital products conglomerate - nothing to do with finance

Nvidia - chipmaker - nothing to do with finance

Meta - social media monopoly - nothing to do with finance

Tesla - EV maker / robotics company - nothing to do with finance

SpaceX - aerospace company - nothing to do with finance

EliLilly - pharma company - nothing to do with finance

Apple - computer and smart phone producer - nothing to do with finance

The list goes on and on and on.

For crypto to level up from here, we need to begin building non-financial (or semi-financial) use cases that are enhanced by decentralization.

Money and Finance were the proof of concept for crypto, but we need to begin venturing outside of that bubble.

If you peer hard enough, you’ll realize that Vitalik was 1000% right when he said that indexing too much on finance will make crypto an ouroboros.

That’s not to say that DeFi is small potatoes.

Quite the contrary, I think DeFi will eventually enable finance to grow much larger than its present day size.

But that doesn’t mean it’s wise to make DeFi the only onchain use case.

The leap doesn’t have to be too foreign either, imo the crypto industry as a whole can grow big time simply by combining the best of what we have in DeFi right now to create semi-financial super apps.

The lowest hanging fruit here is decentralized social media with some financial gamification built in.

Other more futuristic applications that are far above my pay grade would be zk-proven LLMs that use crypto-economics for verifiable compute.

But we need to begin building in these directions.

Failing to do so means the upside for all of us will remain severely capped.

A 5x isn’t cool.

You know what’s cool? 500x.

The year of the tail eating snake is over.

The year of the conquering Horse is here.

Time for crypto to stop eating its own tail and begin conquering uncharted territory outside of money and finance.
#VitalikSells #Alishba_Sozar

The results broke my brain.

It's not strategy. It's not psychology. It's not "the market is rigged."

It's one number that almost everyone gets backwards.

Here's what the data showed:

The losing traders had an AVERAGE win rate of 62%

The profitable traders had an AVERAGE win rate of 47%

Read that again. The losers won MORE often. And still lost money.

How is that possible?

Because win rate is the biggest lie in trading.

The losing traders:
- Won 62% of trades
- Average winner: $85
- Average loser: $147
- Net expectancy: -$0.23 per dollar risked
- Result: Slow death over 6-12 months

The profitable traders:
- Won 47% of trades
- Average winner: $312
- Average loser: $97
- Net expectancy: +$0.96 per dollar risked
- Result: Consistent growth forever

The losers cut winners early and let losers run.
The winners let winners run and cut losers fast.

Same setups. Same markets. Opposite results.

Why almost everyone gets this backwards:

Your brain is wired to avoid losses. It physically hurts to close a trade at -$100. So you hold, hoping it comes back.

Your brain is wired to lock in wins. It feels amazing to close a trade at +$50. So you take profit early, scared it'll reverse.

This is called "loss aversion" and it's been studied for 50 years. It's biological. Your ancestors who feared losses survived longer.

But in trading, it's financial suicide.

The fix:

You don't need a better strategy. You need to flip your risk/reward.

Stop taking setups where your target is the same distance as your stop loss. That's a coin flip minus fees.

Only take setups where your target is 3-4x your stop loss.

At 3:1 risk/reward, you can be wrong 65% of the time and still make money.

The math:

100 trades at 3:1 R:R with 40% win rate:
- 40 winners × $300 = $12,000
- 60 losers × $100 = $6,000
- Net profit: $6,000

100 trades at 1:1 R:R with 60% win rate:
- 60 winners × $100 = $6,000
- 40 losers × $100 = $4,000
- Net profit: $2,000 (minus fees = maybe break even)

The guy with the "worse" win rate made 3x more money.

Stop chasing win rate. Chase R:R.

The 5% who are profitable figured this out. The 95% are still posting 73% win rate screenshots while their accounts bleed dry.
#Alishba_Sozar

Was Jeffrey Epstein connected to Satoshi Nakamoto or Bitcoin’s creation?

Here’s what the evidence actually says:

First, why people even think Epstein could be Satoshi.

Epstein clearly had early financial exposure to crypto.

He invested in Blockstream in 2014, putting $500,000 into the company that employed Bitcoin Core developers.

He invested $3 million into Coinbase in its early days.

He donated around $850,000 to MIT over the years, with $525,000 going to the MIT Digital Currency Initiative

Which paid Bitcoin Core developers when the Bitcoin Foundation ran out of money.

He exchanged emails with Peter Thiel discussing what Bitcoin actually is

In 2016, he even said he had spoken to “some of the founders of Bitcoin”

Oh yeah, that looks suspicious.

But the arguments against Epstein being Satoshi are overwhelming.

Bitcoin launched in 2009.
Satoshi disappeared in 2011.

Epstein’s active involvement in crypto starts after 2011.

There is no evidence of Epstein discussing Bitcoin before it already existed.

Even worse for the theory:

Epstein was incarcerated during key periods of Bitcoin’s early development.

During the 2008–2009 window when Bitcoin was being designed, tested, and released, Epstein was not free.

But of course we also need to talk about Then the technical gap.

Satoshi’s writings show deep understanding of crypto, distributed systems, game theory, and computer science.

Epstein’s emails show none of that.

When Epstein talks about Bitcoin, he speaks like a financier.

He never discusses proof of work, difficulty adjustment, nodes, mining incentives, or attack vectors.

Completely different profiles.

The 2016 “founders of Bitcoin” email is a perfect example.

If Epstein actually knew Satoshi, or was Satoshi, this is not how that knowledge would appear.

Then there are fake emails.

A viral email supposedly from 2008 shows Epstein discussing “Project Bitcoin” with Ghislaine Maxwell.

That email is completely fake.

So what’s the conclusion?

Jeffrey Epstein was not Satoshi Nakamoto.

The probability is effectively zero.

What is true is that Epstein was closer to the early Bitcoin ecosystem than most people realized.