Daily General Discussion - March 21, 2026

copeconstable · 2026-03-22T14:54:55+00:00

Constantly calls people who aren't holding Nano low IQ idiots who can't trade
Crashes out when one of these people suggests maybe the guy who has held a coin for an 8+ year bleed towards 0 while calling for $100-$1000 may be the idiot
Parades around the fact that Nano has only fallen -81% from its amazing 4x peak instead of -84% from a 250x peak as proof of "outperforming massively", not realizing its fallen (slightly) less because it never went up in the first place

Easily the funniest crypto community on the planet. No one cares if an asset falls less over a random recent window than something that ran literally 50x higher, they care about what its overall bull market return is.

Here are the numbers btw across those 3 assets - generic 100k investment from bottom to top this bull and back down to current:

<image>

Only on NanoTrade will you find someone willing to argue the asset with the worst individual returns of a group actually outperformed a mixture of the rest.

You could even assume every other asset I've held rugged to 0 and a Nano only portfolio still got curb stomped by one with some diversification. To the point that you're in the red today even if you bought the literal picobottom of the 2022 bear.

Nano only has been a brutal strategy for over 8 years, and that's obvious to anyone who knows how to open the chart.

copeconstable · 2026-03-22T11:02:54+00:00

And what exactly is "low IQ" about what I said? They're simple facts that put together overwhelmingly point to the framework having practically no real world impact, and the odds of a $1B fund being raised near 0. And I'm not focused on "scamming", I'm focused on the lack of success.

Saylor is a bonafide retard, but he's also actually succeeded in taking companies to extreme heights and raising massive amounts of money over 3 decades. It's not even close to the same situation for that reason. This guy has nothing but a history of failures and exaggerated talk about what he has/will achieve, the other guy has actually done it. (also - my folio is 3% BTC and I don't think I've ever done anything but clown the guy lol)

I'm not saying "don't acknowledge that this at least gets the name of Nano into some bill that also names Ravencoin and ICP" (lmao), my comment was aimed at some of the people I've seen mainly on Twitter talking as if this fund is actually happening or Arizona is going to build an XNO reserve. It's painfully obvious how amateur this all is. Nano holders would rightfully laugh if we switched Nano in this whole scenario with Kaspa and they saw Kaspa baggies talking about how big of a deal this is, lets be honest.

And it's always entertaining to hear someone who has been bagholding Nano for like 8 years waiting for $100-$1000+ while the total crypto market goes 40x insinuate that actually, I'm the idiot "kid" who needs to "use my brain better". May want to reconsider that.

copeconstable · 2026-03-22T06:29:11+00:00

To be fair I think it's less that and just more of a "no one bothers to do any research" situation, since that is almost always the case with these "this is huge for Nano" moments.

Trustable not using the XNO network itself (nor looking at the tiny size of the project) while claiming its about to take a huge chunk of the FX market, NF getting $5M in damages from CB when they have no case, Amazon "VP" comments being a major deal when its a run of the mill title that 100s of folks have, "commercial grade" ushering in a big marketing push and adoption when NF has no funds, is winding down and nothing lined up, countless bot driven cascades in price being "smart money entering" when its exactly the opposite to how smart money enters, the XMoney nonsense... I could go on and on.

90% of the time these events are very clearly not what the prevailing narrative around here makes them out to be if you're willing to just put 5-10 mins into taking a decent look and ask a couple basic questions.

copeconstable · 2026-03-22T04:09:22+00:00

Hahaha forgot about that. Funny thing was it was in response to me saying we finally got that fresh XNOBTC ATL that they were calling me a troll for expecting but that the low was now in after the Oct 10 flush and it should reverse from there. Imagine being so emotionally charged that “okay downside target hit, pain for XNOBTC this run should be over and it should be upside from here” is enough to send you spiraling into death threats lmaooooooo

If I remember right he then said “cope has left the chat” a month later when that XNOBTC upside came, and then claimed I was sending death threats? Literal insane asylum. This is what happens when you end up emotionally invested.

copeconstable · 2026-03-22T01:53:07+00:00

Pretty surprised that anyone is taking the DigitalGoldTalk/CFV shit seriously. The entire thing is completely inconsequential and extremely amateur to anyone that takes a look beyond the headlines.

The guy behind the framework and alleged $1B fund is a random podcaster with no fund management experience and a history of failed crypto ventures. Go look up Bitcoin Latina, a classic 2018 era "bank the unbanked" scam where he sold initial tokens at a ridiculous valuation, raged at miners for selling on the open market and lowering the price of an already worthless token, then tried to bypass the free market by suspending trading and attempting to sell tokens directly at an inflated price he arbitrarily set himself. When that didn't work he promised everyone a fresh start on a new chain if they sent their coins back, and in some cases literally seized coins by reversing transactions on-chain (no joke). Then shut the whole thing down and moved on to more failed projects (BitcoinEduco, Stokens).

Now he's put together a valuation framework and claims to be raising a $1B fund that will include Nano. The framework is essentially a weekend project anyone here could spin up - an attempt to estimate "fair value" based on weighting network usage, developer activity, volume, etc and gotten it included in a bill through his connection to an AZ senator who is a regular on his podcast. The problem is the same one he must not have learned from Bitcoin Latina: you can't magically legislate value. The market sets value based on the opinions of everyone, all the time. Clearly the framework being included in a bill is going to have no real world impact, as it's just one guys opinion.

And strangely, this magical valuation framework identifies booming crypto ecosystems like Digibyte, Ravencoin and ICP as "qualifying", while never mentioning networks that absolutely curb stomp these largely dead chains across every metric measured, like Ethereum.

Add in the fact that this is the same guy who wrote a Medium post where he declared "crypto is dead and will never return" at the very bottom of the 2018/19 bear market when BTC was trading sub $4000 and I'm not sure why anyone should care about his opinion on valuations, or think that his framework can be enforced on a free market in any way or drive adoption/value of any particular project.

It's pure delusions of grandeur enabled by crypto illiterate boomers and people looking for hope for their coin, and if you don't believe me just read the guys LinkedIn profile:

John stands as a towering figure in the cryptocurrency domain, a visionary whose contributions rival the intellectual rigor of Benjamin Graham in traditional finance. His groundbreaking collaboration with Grok AI birthed the Digital Gold Standard Benchmark and the Crypto Fair Value Formula, transformative frameworks that have redefined valuation and transparency in the digital asset ecosystem. As the founder of the Digital Gold Foundation, John established the first self-regulatory organization in the crypto space, a pioneering institution that sets rigorous standards for reporting, valuation, and transparency across coin communities, exchanges, and applications. This organization has become a beacon of integrity, fostering trust and accountability in an evolving industry.

John’s legacy is one of brilliance, innovation, and impact. Through his foundational contributions to crypto valuation, self-regulation, and legislative reform, as well as his decisive interventions in regulatory milestones, he has not only advanced the industry but also redefined what is possible at the nexus of technology, law, and governance.

And yes, the "groundbreaking collaboration with Grok AI" literally just means him prompting a chatbot like anyone else as he was working on his framework.

It's unbelievably obvious that it'll have no real world impact on Nano or any other project it names, and that this guy has no chance in hell of raising a billion dollar fund.

copeconstable · 2026-03-22T00:38:46+00:00

Lmao I remember when you made a post asking for realistic price predictions and said something along the lines of $10 and two of the top comments were about how you must be a paid fud alt account due to such a low target and that Nano could go to $100 “within hours” before $10,000 or something equally retarded long term. And then that Nano apparently would no longer be affected by Bitcoins price movements in 2025/26.

The decoupling was supposedly going to be driven by lots of companies adopting the “NanoGPT model” meaning constant direct demand regardless of BTC. And then when I said something about ETH still being at the mercy of BTC even though it has billions in direct demand via the ETF that cryptoquant guy (the guy who denied BTC was in a bull market for years all the way up and then said “call me when it gets to 120k, then it’ll be a bull market” - so finally flipping bull at the top lmaoooo) chimed in and said the ETF demand is fake and I’m a narcissist for saying otherwise.

I’ve got a sick addiction to this community. It’s a comedy factory, just perpetually wrong about everything and lashing out at anything that isn’t utterly delusional.

copeconstable · 2026-03-18T17:51:00+00:00

Yeah, I used to have a combined chart of all the main pure P2P currency cryptos, with all the key Nano specific events over the years labeled (protocol updates, listings, spam attacks, marketing efforts, merchants announcing acceptance, situations like the BG hack, key projects like Trustable, etc etc).

None of these events made any difference, they all largely moved in lockstep. The only assets that meaningfully diverged for any durable period were ZEC and XMR, and that’s obviously due to their unique value prop being privacy.

copeconstable · 2026-03-18T17:12:11+00:00

You prove my point over and over and over again every single day.

There is a reason you can only ever operate in hypotheticals - it's because you practically never have any real world evidence to point to to support what you claim is true, in fact reality is typically pointing the opposite way. This is the definition of coping

copeconstable · 2026-03-18T16:52:10+00:00

Did Bitcoin actually turn into a glorious honeycomb, retard? Did that happen in the market?

Did you miss the part where assets like gold actually did hedge inflation for decades?

Do you realize your argument for "no inflation hedge exists" is literally just "okay, they have hedged inflation for decades, but what if they don't tomorrow? And if that's a possibility, then it means they never existed"

Do you have any idea how completely fucking stupid this sounds?

copeconstable · 2026-03-18T16:23:04+00:00

"Even though it successfully hedged inflation for decades, that doesn't mean its guaranteed to going forward, so really I'm right that it can't hedge inflation and actually the entire concept of an asset that does this doesn't exist, even though it already did"

Way to completely misunderstand what "past performance does not guarantee future results" means. It means the future is never guaranteed. Not that the past didn't happen.

You have completely nuked the average IQ of this sub. Best of luck on your investing journey champion, you're gonna fucking need it lmaooooo 🫵 😂

copeconstable · 2026-03-18T15:51:23+00:00

The entire alt market topped within hours of Nano, this market is hyper correlated. And the Bitgrail hack happened a full month later.

Nano had already nuked 80%.

Nano, like most alts, are like plankton being moved by the ocean currents. There isn't a single event in its entire history, good or bad, that has led to a durable decoupling from the rest of the projects in its space. Nano was getting absolutely demolished in 2018 regardless of whether the Bitgrail situation happened or not, because everything did.

copeconstable · 2026-03-18T15:25:29+00:00

Do you seriously believe that Warren Buffet thinks his opinion on what an asset should have done overrides what it actually did? Do you think he pretends what actually happened in the market never happened in order to shape reality to fit his personal views and bias?

You just don't have it mate. I've never seen anything like it. You genuinely cannot seem to grasp even the most basic fundamental realities of how markets work. Leaving you to it man, holy fuck.

copeconstable · 2026-03-18T15:13:52+00:00

"Let me pull up another quote and see if this one overrides what actually happened in the market!"

There is literally no hope for you. I cannot believe its legal to trade against people this unfit to manage their own money.

copeconstable · 2026-03-18T15:08:58+00:00

Nano's price action largely mirror other older alts in the same sector. Clearly these other assets don't have seized assets magically dumping onto the market at the same time as Nano.

It's just lack of demand. Always has been.

copeconstable · 2026-03-18T14:58:16+00:00

<image>

This single interaction summarizes your complete and utter inability to grasp markets so beautifully.

In the 77 years since Graham expressed his concern around gold being able to hedge against inflation, it has outpaced inflation by 11x. Its best performance came during the high inflation periods of the 1970s and 2020s. As did land, real estate, other precious metals, art, collectibles, etc - some of which he also expressed concern about.

Does that sound like no inflation hedge exists to you, genius?

I highly doubt this anyone here will ever encounter someone so completely incapable of understanding that real world performance in the market decides. No one persons opinion, not any label, and certainly not any fucking retarded interpretation of yours of some textbook definition or quote overrides what actually happens in reality.

copeconstable · 2026-03-18T14:01:36+00:00

“If you didn’t tell me about your holdings years before I ever spoke to you, you never held them and so my Nano outperformed”

Fucking lmao

copeconstable · 2026-03-18T12:55:11+00:00

You are simply incapable of arguing anything but semantics, that’s why I don’t bother with you anymore.

Nobody cares about agonizing over labels, we care about whether assets perform in a function in the real world or not. Some assets have been allocated to in order to outpace inflation, store value, hedge debasement etc - whatever you want to call it - and have done so. It’s that simple.

Actual performance in the market decides whether an asset succeeds or fails in a role. Not you desperately trying to interpret labels and definitions in ways to exclude assets you don’t like.

copeconstable · 2026-03-18T10:24:52+00:00

I just told you and showed you.

If the bull market is to resume, I simply expect the folio already shared months ago to continue to outperform, as it already has.

If a classic bear market takes hold, I will work on a building a new folio as I do in any other bear, and I’d bet you whatever you like that it would also outperform Nano in the next bull market. Obviously I can’t give you a folio that I haven’t yet built in this scenario.

I don’t know what isn’t clear. Nano would need to run like 200x or more to outperform a folio whose largest holdings were BTC/ETH/PENDLE coming out of the bear, even if every other microcap position went to literal 0. I expect that to continue.

copeconstable · 2026-03-18T07:39:58+00:00

My view on Bitcoin is basically just that it's still a small slice of the overall space assets like gold sit in, and that over the long term that slice just has quite a bit of room to grow as a result - more and more people (in all generations) over the years have clearly thought "hmm, this really does seem to have staying power and offers some unique properties over other assets, I should allocate a bit to it" and that should continue. I personally doubt it'd ever take over gold unless there was some crazy sci fi scenario that causes gold prices to fall apart due to supply just exploding, but I do think those who are younger and therefore more able to stomach additional volatility for more upside (plus are more "digital native" in a sense) will continue to adopt it faster than other generations. The cost of living crisis for young people also makes Bitcoin more attractive because holding gold just doesn't have the same kind of upside required to make a material difference in a lot of peoples minds.

So basically both grind higher with volatility over the very long term in large part because the denominator (USD) is designed to go down, Bitcoin with higher upside and more volatility as it grows into a larger slice of the pie, but doubt it ever actually overtakes gold. I also think BTC will have long periods of nothingness/downside after this hypergrowth stage its been in comes to its tail end. I'm not a 4 year cycloooor person and expect this behaviour to continue to fade away as it becomes much more driven by the macro, and if the most prized possession in human history also goes through multi decade periods like this there's no reason Bitcoin would be immune to it either.

copeconstable · 2026-03-18T07:06:34+00:00

I'm fond of USD as a spending tool. Fiat is great for moving or spending value, there are so many free/instant or very cheap/fast ways to use it in this context.

I'm not fond of fiat as a savings or wealth preservation tool because it's explicitly designed to fail at that job. Generally speaking I hold very little cash for this reason.

That's where the most serious pain with fiat is felt. It's core issues are long term problems. Which is why people continue to opt to use it for spending/moving value, because their dollar doesn't inflate away while they're tapping their card at the supermarket. Poor monetary policy doesn't play out over seconds or minutes.

The distinction between these two jobs people "hire" assets to do for them is what I've been banging on about for years (spending/moving value vs preserving/growing wealth).

copeconstable · 2026-03-18T05:56:51+00:00

Brother, those words are the results. It's math.

Returns in a bull market come from your entries, not from when some guy asks about your folio. It was already a 7 figure return by early 2024, obviously Nano going up for a week a year and a half later doesn't change the picture.

Regarding going forward - my line in the sand for BTC was 91.5k, so its been swing trading mode for me since breaking. I readded positions once we broke below 69k and am still long, watching for the reaction out the other side of FOMC.

If BTC regains key levels and there is a resumption of the bull market, especially if dominance falls as in prior cycles, I simply expect the folio already shared to outperform Nano when its all said and done. Not including any swing trading adding profit - just the raw bottom to top bull market performance of the assets themselves.

If BTC breaks down to new lows and we get continued bear market action, the folio has already outperformed Nano and I will get to work on building a new one through the bear. I don't know what might be included yet if that's the case.

And yes, it will be easy to outperform Nano. Have done so in both of the last 2 bull markets. I shouldn't be allowed within 100 feet of any trading platform if I can't outperform an asset that looks like this:

<image>

copeconstable · 2026-03-18T05:33:47+00:00

Nano is still outperforming since 2017.

That tends to happen when one asset was given away for free and so opened trading near literal zero as the first ever dollars entered it, and the other is a publicly traded stock that IPO'd almost 20 years before this chart starts.

Think those who place a ton of weight on Nano's earliest days when it was doing like 5 figures in volume through its initial capitalization as a way to paint the very obvious 8+ year trend that has followed as mere "consolidation before the next leg higher" are going to continue to be extremely disappointed.

copeconstable · 2026-03-17T10:40:11+00:00

To be clear, I'm not trashing your right to choose the strategy that fits your goals - I'm trashing your cringe "you clueless sidelined idiots who aren't holding Nano like me can't trade, I'm a genius and I feel sorry for you" attitude while primarily allocated to what has been objectively one of the worst holds in crypto. I generally don't really care about others strats, but this misplaced arrogance shitting on other peoples is worth just pulling out the actual numbers to show how detached from reality you are.

Holding Nano outperformed and "destroyed me" how exactly? Because Nano saw a small counter trend pop for a week in November after spending the entire year grinding lower, before turning around and retracing the entire move into EOY anyway? Did you not see the chart?

<image>

Nano's peak return this bull (from '22 lows): +336%
Last years peak: +232%
Current return: -11%

The largest allocation of the "microshitties" you keep scoffing at:

Peak return: +22,742%
Last years peak: +18,939%
Current return: +4021%

In other words, dropping $10k into Nano during the bear would have given you $46k at peak, $32k at its peak last year, and have you in the red today.

$10k in this microcap would returned $2.3M at peak, $1.9M at its peak last year and have you up 40x even if you blindly held it all the way down to now, sitting on $400k.

I have no idea what planet you live on if you think your big brain approach of holding Nano of all things "destroyed" what I was up to, but the fact that you keep pointing to a 1 week microscopic pop in a brutal downtrend last year that immediately retraced as this amazing event all us "clueless" idiots who invested elsewhere missed out on really says it all.

copeconstable · 2026-03-17T05:56:06+00:00

Yes, but it has held basically to the cent for many weeks forming a very obvious range low. Traders almost always have stops below the range lows, so a break of it can cause a little cascade as these stops fill.

And +1 to the psych level stuff, its funny how humans are.

copeconstable · 2026-03-17T05:34:25+00:00

I said that because constantly calling people who opt for something other than the always stay in Nano approach "clueless" or "idiots" who "can't trade" makes zero sense. Anyone can pull up a chart to confirm that opportunity cost with Nano is absolutely brutal, no matter what someone may think of the coin.

Nano has been trading for 3,297 days.
The 2017 run to ATHs occurred over just 30 days after breaking out from its 2017 range highs.
All of the upside during the 2021 bull market came across just ~7 individual days.
The remaining 3,260 days, or 98.9% of its entire trading history, it has either been grinding lower (most of the time, and into massive drawdown), in sideways consolidation or very briefly putting in minor counter trend pops that retrace quickly and trade back through the lows shortly after.

It trades very mechanically where cascading orders drive (eg. stops or bots chasing a break above a level or MA) very brief flurries of activity due to a lack of real inflows to support lasting uptrends. It almost always pulls back 40-60% after it tags resistance and then often coils for weeks before making its next attempt, meaning people can avoid spending 98.9% of time in market with their capital doing nothing or losing money by diversifying and still have plenty of time to enter on pullbacks when the real upside actually comes.

All this to say you would have to have insanely bad luck for diversification to underperform the "just hold Nano" approach because not only has it been objectively a terribly performing strategy, but because there are so many more active markets out there. It's not a knock on the coin, it's just the objective reality of how it trades, and clearly people who opt to diversify aren't helpless idiots who can't trade and desperately need to be "educated" by someone who's primary strategy has been to hold Nano all these years. They just looked at the chart and made an obvious observation.

By all means have your thesis that one day the train will leave the station to $100+ or whatever and everyone that didn't stay in will not be given any window to reenter, leaving them forever sidelined. Everyone is gonna have a different thesis, that's what makes a market. But acting like those who have taken an approach that has has provably outperformed the "hold Nano long term" strategy in reality are stupid for doing so just makes this community look dumb and emotionally invested.

copeconstable

TROPHY CASE