Going Short

@RetardedAutist LOL

@yayogerardo

1. Dont make it sound like I reached out to you to do some work. Do what you will man. You're the one trying to tell me there's a problem with parallel lines but I still maintain they're goated. Don't play the martyr about it I'm not trying to take up your time.

2. Yes theres an inversion narrative, yes trading educators are bound to it by contract and law. Look it up bro. Anton Kriel has a good lecture about it. I even made a thread about it. I don't think you're a scammer, not at all. But I can see the hallmarks of the inversion narrative and I've tried to point them out to you. There is a trope that you just need to study really hard then you will set yourself apart from the gambler. But is that entirely true?

3. I prefer taking positions that I am much more certain of and then just riding out / doubling down over time. The truth is that monero WILL crash. It always does. Granted, I might lose a lot of money waiting for that day to come, but it will happen. The essential logic is that if a trade is worth it for a given price, then its even more worth it at a better price! This is not always true but its what I'm looking for.

4. I'll give you some examples of rigged markets... pretty much anything in crypto haven't you been paying attention or what? Just go to coinmarket cap trending section and click on anything you see. The recurring pattern is coins that have no real value and exist to spin monero through a trading environment. These are rigged because they have a high market value but no underlying value. There is risk of thin liquidity in either direction, and of sustained high funding fees.

5. It seems like deep down you want to be a quant. Have you tried putting this to an LSTM?

For everyone following this exchange, watch how the standards change depending on who’s speaking.

My explanation needs evidence, examples, better charts, and now apparently a neural network. His explanation gets “parallel lines are goated,” “she’ll pay out eventually,” and “Monero WILL crash.”

That’s a double standard. The confidence doesn’t cover it up.

He dismisses my understanding of market structure, then reduces the explanation to support and resistance. He reduces confirmation at a marked zone to buying a green candle. Those are straw-man arguments where one remove the conditions described, substitute something simplistic, then criticizes the substitute.

When asked to support his claim that educators are contractually and legally required to teach failure, he gives us “look it up bro” and a lecturer’s name. That shifts the burden of proof. He made the claim; explaining and supporting it is his responsibility.

Apparently recommending a lecturer is also acceptable but only when he does it. When I recommended tutorials, it became evidence that I’d swallowed somebody’s sales narrative. His preferred source gets the trust he tells everyone else to withhold.

The selective skepticism is even clearer around the trades. He questions whether my exit could get triggered at an unfortunate moment. Meanwhile, his own position can keep losing, receive more collateral, and wait for the crash he’s certain will arrive. He acknowledges he could lose heavily waiting. Somehow that admission doesn’t interrupt the lecture about everyone else’s risk.

He’s described how he keeps the trade alive. He still hasn’t clearly described what would make him concede it was wrong. That’s where conviction can turn into rationalizing a losing decision. Calling it patience doesn’t answer the question.

He asks for a specific trade and more comprehensive charts. When I agree to prepare them, it becomes “just looking at the chart.” When I object to having the effort belittled, I’m playing the martyr. The requests remain visible above his denial.

That’s condescension followed by blame-shifting. He gets to minimize someone else’s time, then makes their objection the problem.

I don’t need to diagnose him to name what he’s doing. The arrogance is in repeatedly questioning someone else’s competence while leaving his own sweeping claims inadequately explained. The defensiveness is in answering challenges with further dismissals instead of applying the same scrutiny to himself.

Some of his questions are reasonable. They don’t excuse the rest of this performance. He’s also appointed himself the examiner without meeting the standard he’s examining anyone against.

For someone so suspicious of everyone else’s bullshit, he’s remarkably comfortable with his own. Clowns are everywhere and the world's a circus.

I'll do my analysis. But it won't be posted because you asked for it even though you just deny that you did when the thread clearly shows you did. It'll be done on my time. On my preferred platform on my grounds.

I'm done with this circus thread.

@yayogerardo oh my god

@yayogerardo Do you mean to imply that you spent all that time writting to a clown?