The 3 alts I selected are obviously very shitty but they are also some of the best charts to see where we really had some form of real alt season during this cycle.

The last one was the post Trump election mania, but we have not had any since then.
$ETH bounced hard off the tariff lows thanks to DATs, but there hasn't been enough liquidity to pump the bottom-of-the-barrel altcoins since Q4 24.

One thing that is favoring the longs in terms of r/r (on scam coins) is the funding rates game

The funding can get so quickly skewed to very negative values that holding a swing short is quite expensive.

The avg funding rate of the scam coins over a long period of time is meaningfully negative, which means that even if the PA is often lackluster, you are likely to get paid over time in funding to long them, with obviously the bonus of a potentially massive squeeze / scam pump at some point.

Job not done for the entity that cornered 75%+ of the $PIPPIN supply

Strangely, the funding is not negative anymore

I think this ends with a huge bang and I'm not getting in front of that entity

3rd time buying $STRC at a large discount worked, but it went as low as $90

Saylor has proven that he will pay the dividends and that he wants this at par.
We are not in a LUNAesque situation at all, you can profit from the irrational fear when people sell $1 for $0.9.

$BMNR is truly a crazy stock

Tom Lee has been able to buy 9 figs worth of $ETH per week just by selling the common stock, and they don't seem to have any intention to raise debt

In other words, all the outperformance that BMNR can have over $ETH comes from two sources:

- Selling BMNR above 1x mNAV
- "Timing the market" and trading ETHUSD in a way that beats the blunt ETH performance

Basically people are just trusting Tom Lee to be a good ETH trader with their money.

I wouldn't say it's a completely ludicrous assumption, but he's the largest holder of ETH and he can't realistically sell it or be nimble with his whole stack, so the outperformance he can generate is quite muted.

In my opinion, a treasury company that doesn't use leverage is a crippled vehicle, and its convergence towards 1x mNAV or below is much more likely, because it's way harder to raise ETH-per-share without ever using any form of debt/leverage.

I wonder what exactly Tom Lee's plan is, because he doesn't seem to want to use leverage, and he doesn't even really seem to believe in the "ETH staking rewards justifies trading at a premium" narrative, as his ETH stack is still not staked.

Actually he doesn't even emphasize an outperformance of BMNR vs ETH as a North Star: he is now carefully hiding the mNAV of $BMNR, or the ETH-per-share evolution.

And yet, is is supposed to be THE main reason for buying a DAT instead of the underlying asset: because the DAT is "adding something" that justifies some outperformance over the underlying.

With BMNR, it's a bit unclear what they are adding to outperform ETH, and Tom Lee doesn't give an answer to that. Selling BMNR for ETH at a premium to NAV only works if the equilibrium mNAV is strictly larger than 1x to a large extent, and there is no obvious explanation for why this should be true given the current setup.

Very interested to see the evolution of the stock over the coming months.

Do you remember the good old days? 🥲

Almost $3bn FDV coin btw

I hope you like volatility 🎢 NFA

$BEAT

Also the $ZEC inverse correlation on LTF is kind of back