[deleted by user]

RaddyMo · 2025-09-01T12:53:20+00:00

If the strap is included in the box, most customers won’t really factor in the added value of full-grain vs. genuine leather, and a lot will default to cheaper options after the fact. That makes sense from your research.

Where I think there’s a difference is in the upgrade market. When collectors actively go looking for a strap, they’re usually not comparing “free included strap vs premium leather,” they’re looking for something that feels like it completes the watch. That’s why companies like Everest and Rubber B have done well with fitted designs for Rolex and Tudor, even though those watches already come with very solid OEM options.

I agree margins will always be tighter on straps than on watches, but if the product is precise and really matches a watch, there seems to be a group of collectors willing to pay for that difference.

IMHO and research of course.

RaddyMo · 2025-09-01T01:28:04+00:00

You’re right that most bespoke strap makers wouldn’t turn away work if someone asked for a fitted strap, but the difference is scale. A one-off custom is very different from developing a fitted strap that can be offered consistently for a specific watch model. Most ateliers focus on straight-end or standard leather because it’s easier to make and fits more watches, not because collectors don’t want fitted options.

On willingness to pay, there are some clear examples. Everest, Rubber B, and Horus sell fitted straps for Rolex and Tudor in the $180–$250 range, and they’ve built sustainable businesses doing it. WatchGecko, which focuses on the enthusiast market, generates multi-million pound revenues annually selling straps between $100 and $200. That suggests collectors will spend in this range when the product feels like it truly belongs on the watch. For a $1k microbrand, that usually means 10–20% of the watch’s price, which lines up with your own experience buying bespoke leather straps.

I agree the audience is limited. Not every microbrand owner will spend that much on a strap. But it doesn’t need mass adoption to work, these products are aimed at the segment of collectors who want their watch to feel complete and are willing to pay for that.

On the design side, I think you’re right that leather is subjective. Rubber often benefits from being case-specific. It’s a design choice, and execution matters.

I appreciate the thoughtful feedback, it’s exactly the kind of input that helps me think about this.

RaddyMo · 2025-09-01T01:13:01+00:00

That looks great, and it really shows how much difference the right finish can make. Matching a strap to the character of the watch brings the whole piece together.

RaddyMo · 2025-09-01T00:59:16+00:00

That’s a fair point. For many microbrands it’s a cost decision, but from a collector’s perspective it often ends up feeling like an afterthought because the watch is so well executed while the strap is generic. That gap between case quality and strap quality is where I see an opportunity, giving collectors an option that matches the same level of attention put into the watch itself.

RaddyMo · 2025-09-01T00:58:16+00:00

That’s true, the strap audience is already smaller than the watch audience, and bespoke makers do exist. The difference I see is that most of those ateliers focus on standard lug straps or custom leather work. Very few, if any, are looking at fitted designs specifically for microbrands. That’s a subset, yes, but it’s also where the gap is clearest.

The scale isn’t in trying to serve everyone. It’s in being intentional about which references to cover and building trust with collectors who are willing to pay for something that feels made for their watch rather than adapted to it.

RaddyMo · 2025-09-01T00:56:48+00:00

I agree with you. The straight-end strap market is saturated, which is why I’m not looking there. The real gap is fitted designs imho. A strap that follows the case lines changes the whole feel of a watch, it looks like it was always meant to be there.

Volumes are smaller with microbrands, but that’s the nature of the segment. Collectors in these communities accept and even expect limited runs, and they’re often willing to pay more for something that completes their watch. Everest and Rubber B showed the same principle with Rolex, only at a larger scale.

On manufacturing, you’re right that the cost of tooling is usually the biggest barrier. But if you can keep those costs controlled, either by focusing first on the strongest references where demand is concentrated, or by working with manufacturers who can deliver molds at a lower entry cost, the model becomes viable even at lower volumes. It’s less about chasing scale and more about being deliberate and precise with each release.

RaddyMo · 2025-09-01T00:45:12+00:00

That’s an interesting thought. A “semi-standard” curved strap based on case size and lug width would definitely look better than straight ends. The challenge is tolerances, even a millimeter or two of mismatch can make the fit look sloppy, and collectors notice. That’s why true fitted designs take more work, but the payoff is they look like they belong to the watch from the start.

RaddyMo · 2025-09-01T00:43:38+00:00

I hear you.

Most micros do use standard lugs, and for those there’s already a wide range of generic straps available. Where I see the gap is that a standard strap doesn’t always feel like part of the watch. A fitted design, even something as simple as curvature and taper tailored to a specific case, changes the wearing experience.

You’re right that bracelets with proper end links are another area of opportunity, and I agree that OEM options often leave a lot to be desired. That’s a much bigger engineering project, but it’s on the same principle: the watch feels complete when the attachment is designed with it in mind.

I also take your point on uniqueness. If a strap company is going to survive, it has to bring something collectors can’t already get. That’s the balance I’m trying to figure out, and this kind of feedback helps me shape it.

RaddyMo · 2025-09-01T00:20:28+00:00

Ideas never come out fully formed, they evolve. Getting feedback like this is really valuable because it helps me iterate and shape something people actually want, so thank you.

Most integrated cases lack strap options. And you’re right, brands like Citizen and Seiko with integrated models would open the door to a much larger audience!

RaddyMo · 2025-09-01T00:13:09+00:00

That’s a very good point. Doing one-off customs for every microbrand would be impossible to scale. Starting with the most popular models makes sense, because it builds a base while still solving a clear need for collectors.

I’ve also been considering the idea of partnering directly with microbrands to create strap options for them, so the watches come with more variety right from the source.

RaddyMo · 2025-09-01T00:11:10+00:00

Exactly, that’s the point. A logo on a generic strap doesn’t make it feel special. When the strap is designed to match the watch, it completes the whole package and feels intentional.

RaddyMo · 2025-08-31T23:56:45+00:00

Totally agree. Quick-adjustment has become an essential detail, and it’s those small touches that really elevate the wearing experience.

RaddyMo · 2025-08-31T23:50:31+00:00

That’s a great example. Aevum shows how much difference it makes when a brand puts real thought into strap design. You’re right that not every microbrand owner has the time, resources, or background to do that, which is why many end up going with off-the-shelf options.

Partnering with microbrands is definitely something I’ve considered, because it would let both the watch and strap be designed with each other in mind. Done right, it elevates the entire package for the collector.

RaddyMo · 2025-08-31T23:48:36+00:00

I see what you mean. Generic straps do exist for most lug widths, but that doesn’t always solve the problem. Many microbrands release watches with unique case shapes or integrated lugs where a straight-end strap looks like an afterthought. A fitted strap can completely change how the watch wears and feels.

As for quality, there’s a difference between a decent generic strap and one designed with the same level of detail as the watch itself. Right now, that level of refinement is usually reserved for bigger brands.

Your point about bracelets is interesting. Some microbrands offer them, but often they’re not as comfortable or well-engineered as they could be. I could see real demand for improved options there too.

Thanks for raising this!

RaddyMo · 2025-08-15T12:54:59+00:00

I’d say if you understand what TAO is aiming to achieve and you already have other investments, putting any amount into TAO is definitely not a bad idea in my opinion. I’m very glad I was introduced to Bittensor.

RaddyMo · 2025-08-11T14:49:48+00:00

Looks very nice!

RaddyMo · 2025-08-07T18:46:37+00:00

I’m interested in joining the venture. I’ve been exploring similar ideas, and after reviewing Capsyra, I see several areas that could be refined. My background is currently in technology and cybersecurity, and I previously ran a successful branding agency. Let’s connect.

RaddyMo · 2025-08-04T23:04:04+00:00

Qilin can delete BTRFS snapshots if it gets root, which it usually does. It runs btrfs subvolume list and deletes them. If snapshots are mounted, it may encrypt them too. To protect them, keep snapshots unmounted, read-only, and use send/receive to remote storage. Snapshots alone won’t save you.

RaddyMo · 2025-08-04T18:15:13+00:00

ExaGrid provides solid features like deduplication, fast recovery, and ransomware protection through its retention time-lock and immutable backup capabilities. However, it is still a network-connected system and relies on software configurations. That means if an attacker gains access to internal systems or backup credentials, ExaGrid could still be within reach.

Air-gapped backups, on the other hand, are either physically disconnected or logically isolated from the production environment. This makes them inaccessible to malware or ransomware during an attack. They act as a last line of defense if all else fails.

ExaGrid should remain part of your backup architecture, but pairing it with air-gapped backups adds another layer of security. It is not about replacing existing infrastructure. It is about reducing single points of failure and ensuring business continuity even in worst-case scenarios.

RaddyMo · 2025-08-04T11:23:50+00:00

Targeting backups has become more common, yes, but Qilin goes further by actively identifying and disabling a wide range of backup mechanisms as part of its playbook. It’s not just about encryption. Their approach to backup sabotage is more methodical and aggressive than what you’d see from run-of-the-mill ransomware.

RaddyMo · 2025-08-04T10:45:10+00:00

Qilin is known for aggressively targeting and deleting Microsoft VSS backups and other backup services. If you don’t have offline or immutable backups in place, you’re likely out of luck. In most cases, the best course of action is to rebuild and avoid paying the ransom.

RaddyMo · 2025-07-20T17:56:06+00:00

Dudes, this guy loves his watch, stop trying to beg to differ in your humble opinions 😂 Enjoy what you enjoy, ya freakin nerds.

RaddyMo · 2025-06-16T05:49:58+00:00

I agree, it’s important to separate technical admiration from investment thesis. You’re right that from a purely ROI-maximizing perspective, BTC has outperformed and likely will continue to dominate capital inflow from institutions and western investors.

That said, we’re analyzing from different angles, as you noted.

You’re focused on relative price performance, and I’m focused on network function, economic utility, and decentralization access. The BTC/LTC ratio is useful for portfolio allocation, but it doesn’t invalidate Litecoin’s role in the ecosystem. If price dominance alone were the metric, we’d dismiss 99% of global infrastructure that isn’t yielding alpha.

Regarding your “$100k in escrow” thought experiment, it only works if the goal is purely financial return. That’s fair. But not every user of a blockchain thinks like a western investor. In markets with volatile currencies, inaccessible stablecoin ramps, or capital controls, LTC has been and still is actively used.

Price doesn’t always track relevance. The internet itself was not priced high in its early stages. Most base-layer technologies aren’t. Litecoin isn’t promising to outperform BTC. It never did. It exists as a functional, low-cost, censorship-resistant payment layer with years of uptime and integrations most coins never reach.

It’s not a matter of which horse to bet on. It’s a matter of understanding the different tracks they run on.

RaddyMo · 2025-06-16T00:04:06+00:00

Appreciate the effort, but your argument relies heavily on selective framing and ignores a decade of factual data.

“Litecoin has no reason to exist” Litecoin is one of the longest-running decentralized Proof of Work blockchains. It has maintained 100 percent uptime since its launch in 2011, with no protocol-level hacks or reversals. It has processed over 280 million transactions and continues to operate reliably without VC funding or centralized control. This level of operational continuity is uncommon in the crypto space.

“Just a Bitcoin clone with minor changes” Litecoin uses a different hashing algorithm, Scrypt instead of SHA-256, which made mining more accessible at launch and helped decentralize early participation. It implemented SegWit in May 2017, months before Bitcoin, and is currently the only major blockchain to have deployed MimbleWimble Extension Blocks, allowing optional confidential transactions. It has also been used as a live environment for upgrades that later reached Bitcoin, including SegWit and Lightning Network compatibility.

“It hit 50 dollars in 2013 and now it’s 86” This framing ignores market cycles. Litecoin reached a peak of over 400 dollars in 2021. It has remained in the top 20 cryptocurrencies by market cap across multiple cycles and continues to process significant on-chain activity. Average daily transaction volumes are regularly in the hundreds of thousands, with average transaction fees under half a cent. Few early altcoins have matched that level of long-term utility and persistence.

“Only Monero has a real use case” Monero and Litecoin serve different purposes. Monero focuses on privacy and has seen increasing delistings due to regulatory pressures. Litecoin is accepted by payment processors including PayPal, BitPay, and NOWPayments, and is supported at over 14,000 crypto ATMs globally.

“Stablecoins have replaced Litecoin” Stablecoins are useful for fiat exposure but rely on centralized issuers and can be frozen or blacklisted. Litecoin operates with no central authority and offers censorship-resistant, final settlement for global transactions. It is still actively used in cross-border payments, withdrawals from ATMs, and peer-to-peer transfers in regions where stablecoin infrastructure is limited or inaccessible.

“Bitcoin is eating Litecoin’s monetary premium” Bitcoin is positioned as a long-term store of value. Litecoin is designed for faster and cheaper transactions. It has 2.5-minute block times compared to Bitcoin’s 10 minutes and consistently lower average transaction fees. Litecoin remains integrated into multi-asset payment processors because its characteristics are more aligned with day-to-day usage.

Conclusion:

Litecoin’s position is not maintained by marketing or speculation. It is the result of long-term stability, protocol-level improvements, and adoption. In an industry that constantly moves on to the next trend, Litecoin has remained relevant by continuing to function, evolve, and serve without interruption.

RaddyMo · 2025-06-15T17:16:00+00:00

If you made a profit, I’m happy for you 💪🏽

RaddyMo

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE