ETHEUR
Ethereum / Euro
crypto Composite

I swear, I’ve been ordering nothing but pizza for the past 7 days, my family hates me because I’m ignoring everyone, and I smell like a pig. I’ve been in an absolute rabbit hole for the past week ever since the thought hit me: "Which cryptocurrency should I invest in?"
Of course, I stumbled across the usual suspects: Solana, Bitcoin, XRP, etc. But one in particular really caught my attention: Ethereum.
How is it possible that Ethereum is the second biggest cryptocurrency, but still feels so "cheap" and always falls to this lows?
So I started digging.
At first, I ended up on YouTube - like pretty much everyone. YouTubers doing all sorts of chart analysis. At first, it seemed plausible. But then I went back and watched some of their older videos, and guess what? Not a single one of their predictions came even remotely true.
Next, I moved on to crypto news YouTubers. But they all gave off this vibe of "How do I get the most views the fastest?" Some of it was informed, yes - but the promises were way too big and way too fast. Not for me. I don’t buy into that.
My motto has always been: Buy, hold, forget, celebrate in 1–3 years.
Naturally, I ended up in some forums. And the opinions on Ethereum couldn’t have been more divided. From “Ethereum is the best thing ever” to “Ethereum is so slow and trash.”
I think people are just frustrated because Ethereum is so volatile.
Up to this point, I guess most people have taken the same path.
And by now, 5 days had already passed.
After that, I made a post in a reddit thread.: "Why is ETH so undervalued?"
I expected maybe 3–4 replies.
Boom: Over 200 replies. And zero consensus.
That’s when I thought: Why not go straight to the root?
So I started watching tons of interviews with Vitalik from 2020–2025, tracked Ethereum’s development, watched BlackRock interviews, especially with Larry Fink, and looked into how Ethereum has changed over the years.
Ethereum was always cool, but it never focused on marketing. Only a tiny fraction of people even understand what ETH actually is.
But earlier this year, Ethereum launched something called Etherealize—which is aimed specifically at changing that, to finally start marketing Ethereum properly.
All of this, combined with BlackRock saying that everything will be built on ETH, and the fact that other companies also put ETH first, led me to this conclusion:
Ethereum is a caterpillar that’s turning into a GIGA MEGA ULTRA butterfly.
And here’s why I think that:
1. Ethereum realized their public image sucks. They appointed two co-directors to strengthen leadership.
2. Etherealize is actively reaching out to potential clients to pitch Ethereum.
3. BlackRock is backing Ethereum, and in an interview, it was said that other companies also put ETH at the top.
4. Last year, Larry Fink said in an interview that he wants to tokenize all of BlackRock’s assets because he’s convinced that’s the future.
5. This year, Fink repeated in another interview that the SEC needs to hurry up because tokenization would simplify so much.
6. Within just two months, BlackRock poured $2.2 billion into the BlackRock USD Institutional Digital Liquidity Fund. Before that, they had invested only $600 million over the course of an entire year.
7. Ethereum still holds the largest market share—by far.
8. BlackRock plans to tokenize its $150 billion Treasury Trust Fund. While they didn’t officially say it’ll be on ETH, the signs are obvious. In a recent interview at Etherealize, it was hinted that BlackRock did choose ETH. Also, they previously ran a very successful pilot project on Ethereum.
9. Other companies are jumping on the ETH bandwagon too.
10. Tom Lee just bought nearly 5% of ETH Supply in less than a year. And it is not his money, it is big institutional money
Okay… there’s a lot more I could say.
But those are my core fundamental data points for why I believe ETH is a sleeping giant.
What do you think?
If I’m missing something or misinterpreting any of this, feel free to call it out. I’m genuinely curious.

Guy that just sold ETH low the bought high with all the data analytics at hand ?

ETH, SOL, NEXO any of them

I am, sorry for that. I meant it mostly as 'operating cost per ETH' but used it also in other ways. Corrected now.

It is poorly incentive aligned. Its a really poor job on that area.
Small and big staking entities alike reject it. They share points on the fact that this is an undercover tax to stakers to reduce dilution on idle ETH.
They do not share other points. Big staking entities do not want the LST party to end. Small entities do not want to be pushed out in terms of economic viability.
To top it off, the EIP smells of academic economics, and condescendingly tries to convince small operators that they should care more about their "share" of total ETH, than the flat value of their ETH.
This logic implies that we should care above all, about the total value of ETH market cap. All this logic is antithetical to Ethereum ethos and ETH moneyness.
Instead they should have framed this as % of Ethereum governance. But the lines are too blurry.
The EIP is not liked because it is pretending this problem is simpler than It IS, that there is no social layer, and that It doesnt have any burden of proof due to the topic being an urgent matter.

I wanted to answer what I thought was a fairly simple question:
**Does order-book microstructure contain enough information to beat Polymarket's 5-minute crypto markets after transaction costs?**
Turns out the harder part wasn't training the model.
It was getting the data.
As far as I could tell, there wasn't any public historical dataset with tick-level quotes, trades and order-book updates for these markets, so at the end of June I started collecting everything myself.
The archive now covers BTC, ETH, SOL and XRP 5-minute markets.
For every trading day it contains best bid/ask quotes, trade prints, spot prices, and (from 20 July onward) full L2 depth. Everything is stored as daily Parquet files with manifests and measured uptime for each day.
Once I finally had enough history, I trained a regime-routed LightGBM ensemble using only information available at the decision timestamp.
The disappointing part is that the model actually behaves reasonably well.
Calibration is good.
Out-of-sample Brier scores are consistently around 0.06–0.10 depending on asset and market regime.
But the strategy still loses money.
Across roughly 4,300 simulated trades it finishes around **-$277**.
The hit rate is about **47%**.
After spread and fees you need something closer to **49%** just to break even.
That two-percentage-point gap turned out to be the entire problem.
Looking back, most of the important work wasn't machine learning at all.
I found that my simulator had been using fees that were 3.5× too low.
One validation gate wasn't actually filtering anything because of a bad threshold.
At one point the trading system quietly stopped opening new positions because several expired markets hadn't been marked as resolved yet, while every monitoring dashboard still showed the process as healthy.
Those bugs changed the conclusions far more than another week of feature engineering.
I'm curious whether anyone here has managed to build a strategy on prediction-market microstructure that survives realistic execution costs.
If you have, I'd genuinely like to hear what worked.
And if anyone wants to reproduce the experiment or try a completely different approach, I'm happy to share the dataset. It now contains a little over a month of tick-level history and keeps growing every day.

Disclosure first since this sub asks for: I've studied hundreds to thousands wallets manually to find good ones but got lazy. I’m building a SOL/BSC and ETH wallet analytics tool called Vabulo. The process below is what led me to build it, but you can do all of it manually with block explorers and spreadsheets. This is no financial advice, past performance does not predict future results. Do your own research.
One thing I stopped doing was ranking wallets purely by total profit.
A wallet showing $500k in profit is not automatically a good wallet to follow.
Maybe it started with several million dollars.
Maybe most of the profit came from one lucky token.
Maybe the wallet received tokens before they became publicly tradable.
Maybe the current unrealized PnL is hiding several bad positions.
A smaller wallet that consistently turns modest positions into profit can sometimes be much more interesting.
That’s normally where I start.
I look at the wallet’s recent trading history and try to understand what “normal” performance looks like for it.
Then I look for changes:
s the wallet suddenly increasing its position sizes?
\- Is it entering a new token category?
\- Is the win rate improving or falling?Is it holding positions longer than usual?
\- Is most of the PnL realized or still unrealized?
\- Are profits coming from repeatable trades or one extreme outlier?
The raw PnL number is usually the least interesting part.
For example, a wallet may show a high win rate because it sells tiny profitable positions while keeping large losing positions open.
Another wallet may have a lower win rate but still make more money because its winners are much larger than its losses.
That’s why I normally look at several metrics together:
* Realized PnL
* Unrealized PnL
* Win rate
* Average profit per winning trade
* Average loss per losing trade
* Position size
* Holding time
* Trading fees
* Token liquidity
* Number of trades
Sample size matters too.
A wallet with an 80% win rate across five trades tells you almost nothing.
A wallet maintaining a 60% win rate across hundreds of trades is much more interesting, especially when the profits are distributed across different tokens and time periods.
I also check whether the wallet’s trades were realistically reproducible.
A wallet can look extremely profitable while trading tokens with almost no liquidity.
If entering after the wallet would cause massive slippage, the historical performance may be real for that wallet but useless as a research signal for anyone else.
Timing is another important factor.
Some wallets buy minutes before a token moves.
Others build positions over several days.
The first may look more impressive, but the second can be easier to study because the opportunity did not disappear immediately after the transaction.
I also avoid assuming that every profitable wallet is a skilled trader.
There are several possible explanations:
* The wallet belongs to a project contributor
* It received tokens through an OTC agreement
* It is connected to several other wallets
* It transferred assets from a centralized exchange
* It benefited from an airdrop
* It simply got lucky once
Public blockchain data gives you a lot of information, but it rarely gives you the complete story.
The useful part is not finding a wallet with a large green number.
It is finding repeatable behavior.
For me, the strongest signal is usually when several independent wallets with good historical records begin showing similar behavior.
One wallet buying a token can be noise.
Several historically consistent wallets entering the same category, increasing position sizes or changing their trading behavior can be worth investigating.
Doing this manually gets slow very quickly.
You have to open transactions, identify swaps, calculate cost bases, separate transfers from trades, find historical prices and compare the wallet’s current behavior against its previous activity.
That’s why I started building the process into Vabulo:
Vabulo tracks historically high-performing Solana wallets, estimates onchain PnL and win rates, and highlights notable wallet activity and trading patterns.
It does not execute trades or automatically copy wallets.
The goal is to make public onchain data easier to research before making your own decisions.
I’m currently trying to understand which metrics people actually find useful and which ones only make a dashboard look more sophisticated.
For people who already track wallets:
How do you decide whether a profitable wallet is genuinely skilled or simply lucky?
And which metric do you trust most: realized PnL, win rate, consistency, position sizing or something else?
Solo founder. AMA.

Are you using the term cost basis unconventionally? Cost basis does not affect ones operating costs. Most of the ETH staked by large entities belongs to their customers, so the entities really don't care what the cost basis is, whereas solo stakers might.

True, ETH is not even a teenager

Still need to research the staked ETH yield curve proposal, but from what I see so far - it might have a significant impact on LST loopers across lending protocols as they rely on the LST's native yield to outweigh the borrow APY of the borrowed ETH.

Hmm, not familiar with that concept, but let's try and figure out if there's any ETH there.
Is there any wallet address whatsoever associated with that Ether card? Or is the idea that the NFT is somehow redeemable for the 2 ETH?
From your commend, I assume that there is an address associated with the Ether card, but you have no way of accessing that address through any wallet app, right?
Would love to see the address of it so I can search it on etherscan, so if you want to share it in DMs, please do. If you're apprehensive about that, I totally understand.

SUI, ETH, SOL

I also mined 4 years and mostly during the winter to help heat the house. I have a little over 100 ETH and mined with 41 GPUs. You did really well. When did you start mining in 2017?
I certainly hope ETH reaches $15k long before 2035. That sounds a bit pedestrian to me. Imagine how much more value the dollar will have lost by then...

I used to mainly trade stocks, so I was used to the rhythm of the market open and close.But after getting into crypto, the biggest change is that the market never sleeps. A lot of price moves happen at night, on weekends, or when you’re not even paying attention.I don’t stare at charts all day now, but I’ll open BYDFi sometimes to check BTC, ETH, trending coins, and the gainers/losers list to see the current market sentiment. When I first got into crypto, I only wanted to look at some popular coins and didn’t really care about anything else.The biggest thing I’ve noticed is that a 24/7 market is a double edged sword.There are more opportunities, but it’s also easier to trade out of boredom or impulse.Has crypto being 24/7 changed the way you trade?

I hope there's still some energy to keep the discussion going. I think most solo stakers look at the proposal as follows: 1. institutional operators have a lower cost basis than solo stakers. 2. this proposal lowers yield for all stakers. 3. The very logical consequence is that solo stakers will be pushed out to the benefit of institutional operators due to this proposal.
I think there is one critical flaw in this reasoning: the extent to which institutional operators are cheaper than solo stakers depends on the total stake. Think of it this way: as more and more total ETH is staked, the cost per ETH of my operation as a solo staker is unaffected. Other people staking does not affect my cost basis at all. But this is not true for the institutional operators: **as the total stake goes up, the cost per ETH of the institution's staking operation goes down.** This is because they inevitably attract part of the new stake. Economies of scale are made possible by higher and higher stake levels.
Accordingly, we are currently frogs in slowly boiling water: as the total stake continues to rise, we are slowly but surely being pushed out in favour of institutional operators. The only solution (besides correlation penalties, but both are independently good things) is to punish issuance more aggressively, at lower levels of stake. This pushes the point where staking becomes unprofitable for solo stakers closer to the point where it becomes unprofitable for institutions. Right now those points are far apart, and as solo stakers we will be pushed out. It is only a matter of time.
A very good read: https://ethresear.ch/t/the-shape-of-issuance-curves-to-come/20405. I was discussing cost levels with u/epic_trader on here yesterday; this post assumes annual costs for a solo staker of $1000, which I consider extremely high. But it just makes this analysis conservative in a sense - solo stakers are expected to be able to stay in the game under the new issuance curve even with this very high annual cost base.
I also feel that people here are acting like this is all very rushed, new and coming out of nowhere. But this is not true, Justin Drake has talked about this for years. [Vitalik wrote in 2024 about the risks of increasing stake much beyond 30%](https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2024/10/20/futures3.html). This is an extremely important topic for Ethereum, for avoiding value capture and for ensuring that solo stakers and the community continue to have a say, instead of giving power and control over ETH to institutions like Lido, Coinbase and Blackrock (ETFs).

I believe in Ethereum. I will continue to run Ethereum even with lower inflation.
The current inflation is mostly spent to power the staking "industry" and looping defi mechanisms. Large players are making bank. This doesn't help Ethereum. ETH needs to be ready to take the mantle from Bitcoin once the time comes, very low issuance is part of that.
As long as Ethereum has massive economic security we should let the market decide what we pay for it, risk is not 0 so there will always be staking rewards to be had. Don't let your local lido rep colour your view on this proposal.
8363 is gud. ETH is money. 10k is fud.

This is EXACTLY why Ive been hyping up ETH over last years. Its the only genuinely useful place where large capital will flow in upcoming years due to its security via major adoption and smart contracts enabling this kind of behavior.

Someone wanted some BTC and ETH.

Italian bank ( intesa San Paolo ) buy ETH and sell BTC

The friction you're describing is the thing the industry already gave up on solving. Merchant acceptance never really arrived, so the payment layer that works is still the old one.
Of the 138 live crypto cards I track, 137 run on Visa or Mastercard. That's the whole trick. No address to fumble, no app switching, and 115 of them sit in Apple Pay. The merchant just sees a normal card.
What it doesn't fix is the fee, it hides it better. The cost moves into the conversion spread at the till, and most issuers keep that off the pricing page. In the US there's a second catch: every swipe is technically a sale of crypto, so paying with ETH logs a gain on a coffee. Funding with stablecoins keeps that near zero.
So the blocker isn't wallet UX. It's that nobody accepts crypto, and cards are the workaround everyone quietly settled for.
Fee and custody breakdown is on my own site: [sweepbase.net/cards](http://sweepbase.net/cards)