I appreciate you offering me the articles but it does state very clearly on their website:

"If you do not stake through LiquidStake, your ether will be ineligible for USDC liquidity."

So yeah, won't work. I spent some time looking around but to the best of my knowledge, the Ethereum staking nodes are mostly just stuck there for years and can not be collateralized. Not the worst thing in the world. 8% or whatever is fine. All these yields requiring 40% or it sucks or whatever the present meta is, is a bit insane to me. Granted I think those things are good too, but a diversified set of everything I think is most practical, including the nitty stuff.

You would sell your BTC for ETH or you did sell your BTC for ETH?

It's a pretty legitimate question to ask given you started posting mega bearish takes on both BTC and ETH in late February until as recently as 4/22, claimed to have sold 25% of your BTC stack, claimed to have shorted via BTC derivatives at the local low of $44k (ouch!) and all in all declared crypto dead until the next halving.

There's plenty of room on the bandwagon if you want to hop back on but it's hard to keep track of your manic incongruent takes that flipped from Bitcoin bull to crypto bear to Ethereum maxi over the course of two months.

So i'm pretty new to Crypto and decided to buy some ETH at the start of Feb. I've made a nice little 5 figure gain and not sure what to do now.

A friend who is more in the crypto space than i suggests selling some and buying Bitcoin...but i think i aant to let it ride for now

If you're in America then you might have tax considerations.

You're going to get every answer imaginable here, including "sell it because crypto is a ponzi scheme, and you got incredibly lucky." You should definitely be educating yourself on the basics of ETH and BTC to where you can form your own opinion, or get to the point where you know whose opinion to trust.

All that aside: I personally think ETH gets up to about .1 BTC pretty shortly, then... who knows? Could go either way, I think back down to .08 or so.

When it was hovering in the .033 range I was waiting for it to get to .025-28 before I was going to make a rather substantial purchase and here I am holding the BTC bag. Not buying at this point, just going to be happy with what I got.

I'm sure .1-.2 is possible. Really depends on a lot of factors. Eth 2.0 doesn't come out for forever though so a lot of things can happen between now and then.

I think the UCC guys were predicting a run up to overtake BTC marketcap before crashing back down and then sustaining at some level. But its just a lot of guessing at this point.

Lido is another option to look into. Have not used it myself but there are liquid staking derivatives (stETH).

There's a lesson in there about trading Every person ever says things like this. Generally they're waiting for a nuke, say, to .028 but then it happens and they're waiting for .025, and so on.

Just bid at various levels, accept that your chances of catching the actual bottom are quite low if you don't have the size to actually put a floor on it; you just hope to get a good entry overall. For me, firm inclusion date for eip-1559 was enough of a catalyst to trade it all and not worry about it potentially going down another 5-25% before bouncing.

(oh wow, just noticed my new undertitle -- thx to whoever gave me that!)

Sheep86's idea. Thanks for the great posts.

No, I was serious... lol. I'm not some ****** saying some target then waiting again. I was quite ready to fire. I already owned a lot of ETH. If I had had no ETH exposure I would have just bought at 0.033. But it was a play where if it had dropped I would have increased exposure, and if it had run up I'd just have to be happy with what I had, which is the case it ended up being.

Buying no matter what just because fomo isn't exactly sound trading advice either. Having crypto based targets is fine.

I do think that on a USD/fiat level that buy any time can make perfect sense with what you're saying because waiting for fiat targets has had disastrous implications looking back in time. But BTC pegged targets is extremely reasonable in the space. Ignoring that has also had disastrous implications.


-> And with Lido, I sent them an e-mail a few days ago. No idea if they'll respond or have an answer but I'll update in the thread if it turns out positively.

Looking at it objectively, something was down ~30% already (from .046) and you wanted to bid 15-25% below that through an obvious technical target (.03) and in the face of the most important catalyst ever for ethereum that had been anticipated for years (eip-1559 included). Didn't mean it as offense, just something I see a lot when it's red candle after red candle people just get bearish/convinced it's going lower and greedy about getting better entries. Also, hard to qualify buying something recently 30% down as "FOMO". And yeah I agree re:fiat targets-- the common trope is everyone says they'll enter on the next BTCUSD dip, then see blood and don't.



It really makes me think about this tweet every time I see this happen (and ofc did it myself a lot in the past). Honestly some of the simplest/best trading advice for everyone reading ^^

What does the 80/20 rule mean in this context? 80% trades are winners and 20% losers?

Probably more that 80% of profits come from 20% of the research

There are lots of ways to apply it-- but definitely not 80% winners.

Profits - 80% of profits come from just a few of your very best trades
Multi-leg trades where one leg is significantly more important than the others - focusing on getting that part right, instead of being a perfectionist about the less important leg.
Things you spend time on - spend 80% of your time on just a few projects you know very well, and make concentrated bets on them. You shouldn't have 25 different 1% positions; spreading yourself way too thin.

I hate that principle because it's so widely misunderstood

Had a colleague who I didn't manage but had some seniority over in the sense that I had to sign off on his projects in order for him to proceed and he understandably wanted to not be in that position but also be the person managing me

So he setup a meeting with the head of the department to pitch his case and the head invited me to join once he figured out what he wanted

I walk in the room just as he's explaining his vision for the entire team is that we will follow the pareto principle and to ensure this happens he'd select the top 20% of the entire department and have them work 12 hours a day and also come in on weekends

Needless to say I didn't need to say anything in my own defense at that point

The principle is often misunderstood as a metric for attaining success, not the dust time I've seen organizational structure created with the idea to "exploit Pareto"

https://mobile.twitter.com/JallyWhiskey
Has to be the same guy from these threads

The base fees that are getting burned with EIP 1559, those fees would have gone to ETH holders eventually in PoS anyways, right? So it's just to reduce wasteful spending going to the miners and eventually stakers. I feel like EIP 1559 will be a good price bump narrative for this cycle but if I were an ETH maximalist and had planned on staking my ETH long term, I would rather EIP 1559 not go through if PoS was inevitably on the horizon.

I think you misunderstand the point of burning the `BASEFEE` and EIP-1559 in general.

It's a significant UX improvement that lowers the volatility of fees, which will tend to reduce overpayment and allow better assurances about quick confirmation for users who need it.

It has good effects on the sustainability of the security budget of the chain, because it can tolerate higher block rewards when the chain is congested. In general it decreases the link between blockchain use and security budget that BTC suffers from as its block reward declines and must rely solely on tx fee revenue for security.

In addition to that, it's to ensure that ETH is needed to pay for computation on the Ethereum network. Currently, you can do a transaction for free if you're a miner or bribe a miner (you could pay them outside of the protocol with ETH, dollars, BTC, tomatoes, whatever). You'll see a lot of these 0 gwei transactions at the front of blocks if you look and the transactions that go through FlashBots are labeled as such. Post EIP-1559, every transaction will require burning (spending) ETH.

Overall, it is probably the most important change in Ethereum's history as it completely dismantles the "Ethereum not ETH" narrative that has been pervasive since Pfeffer's paper in 2017. All ETH holders capture fee revenue from Ethereum even without staking. Check cryptofees.info to see what Ethereum's cashflow has been

Here are some good resources on it:
https://uncommoncore.co/eip-1559
https://insights.deribit.com/market-...s-of-eip-1559/
https://insights.deribit.com/market-...e-in-eip-1559/
http://timroughgarden.org/papers/eip1559.pdf

I also think that EIP-1559 is likely better for the system in the long run. But for someone who's just staking ETH in POS, does that person really mind if people are overpaying in fees? More efficiency in fee structuring isn't exactly what I want if I'm a big staker, I'd want as much fees spent with as much inefficiency as possible. That's why I really don't see how the burning of fees is something more than fuel for the inevitable "flippening" narrative.

I guess my point is if I am long term planning on holding and staking ETH, then I really wouldn't want EIP-1559 and more efficient gas fees before POS. I'd want POS to come into effect, and then maybe EIP-1559 like a year or two after that while I get to stake my ETH and collect a huge amount of staking revenue those first couple of years.
On the other hand, if I am looking to play the flippening narrative like most of the whales are, then I am all for anything that will get people hyped up about ETH during the next few months.

Btw, I really appreciate the lengthy response and explanation. I'm going to take a look through all those articles and resources you pulled for me, as I'm probably missing something in the equation. Thank you!!

Read this a few times. Based on your response it seems like you did not.
https://uncommoncore.co/eip-1559

I mean literally no one who is working on the protocol is thinking "lol let's do the flippening". EIP-1559 is needed for ETH to accrue value from the utility of the Ethereum network because it creates a direct mechanism by which network use -> ETH burned. If you're a big staker, you are naturally long a lot of ETH and are receiving fees in ETH. So what you want is max EV, not max fees. Without EIP-1559, people can pay tx fees in stablecoins, users have a worse experience in higher variance in confirmation time (hurts the adoption rates of the technology as a whole), and Ethereum's security budget is determined in part by both highly variable fees and highly variable ETHUSD prices. All of these things are bad for ETH, and thus bad for stakers. EIP-1559 fixes this.

In addition to the reasons outlined above, fees getting bid up as they are now in first price auctions creates deadweight loss compared to a more efficient fee system (like EIP-1559). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons...sing%20demand. Creating better UX is ultimately better for both users and stakers, and reminder that there is massive overlap between those 2 groups.

Oh, no doubt things will get a lot more efficient after this. There might be some misunderstanding here- I'm not saying EIP-1559 isn't going to be great for Ethereum.

It might not be the devs themselves, but I do believe there's at least a few people thinking about the flippening narrative that are positioned accordingly

As always, thanks for the response!

300$ to send a free transaction right now. Wat

Gotta pay to play ser

4k

5k wen?

these two posts were exactly a week apart + 2 hours.

So May 16 is a pretty good bet.