ETHEUR
Ethereum / Euro
crypto Composite

Maybe your problem is not the product but poor timing? If you want to stop losing money on blue chip tokens, such as ETH or BTC, then stop selling them when you are on minus. They will go back up! Maybe it will take some time but they will.
It's different story about pure meme lottery tickets. If the token has nothing but speculative value to provide and the community dies, or rogue team pulls the liquidity, then you should consider selling on minus. At least you get something, instead of getting zero.
If you want to take more risk and win big, I suggest to look for new project launches, do you own research and bet on new projects that provide value. Good luck!

50% BTC , 20% MSTR, 20% ETH , 10% wait for good entry on some Alt’s

TL;DR — Stablecoin dominance is a ratio. It rises either because fresh money is coming in (dry powder), or simply because the rest of the market is collapsing. The chart looks identical in both cases. Right now USDT.D sits at 8.5% while supply has been flat for months — that's the second case. And we've seen this signature before.
Disclosure: None of this is financial advice.
The problem with USDT.D
You see it constantly: "USDT.D bouncing off support → alt season incoming." The implicit reasoning is that rising dominance = capital waiting on the sidelines = fuel for the next leg up.
That can be true. It can also be completely wrong. The dominance chart alone can't tell you which.
The mechanics
: USDT.D = USDT market cap / total crypto market cap
It's a fraction. It rises in two opposite situations:
Case 1 — the numerator rises. New USDT gets minted. Fresh money enters and parks in stables. Real dry powder. Constructive.
Case 2 — the denominator falls. Supply doesn't move an inch, but BTC/ETH/alts get destroyed. Dominance rises mechanically, without a single new dollar arriving.
The chart goes up the same way in both cases. That's the whole problem.
How to tell them apart: absolute supply
Look at market cap in dollars, not percentage. On TradingView: CRYPTOCAP:USDT below USDT.D.
|Dominance|Absolute supply|Reading|
|:-|:-|:-|
|↑|↑|Genuine inflows. Capital waiting. Constructive|
|↑|flat or ↓|No new money. The market is just bleeding.|
|↓|stable or ↑|Capital deploying into risk. Risk-on signal.|
Only the first has predictive value. And it's visible only on the supply panel.
https://preview.redd.it/zu58susnq7fh1.jpg?width=2302&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c0da31b6b7379419703e986364b0f632ce2aeff9
Top: USDT.D weekly. Bottom: USDT market cap (CRYPTOCAP:USDT). Boxes aligned on the same time windows.
What the chart shows
Today: USDT.D at 8.50% (+1.45% on the week). USDT supply at 183.99B, down roughly 30M week over week. Dominance is climbing while supply has been flat since early 2026, with slightly negative weeks.
Do the implicit math. If dominance rises sharply while the numerator stays fixed, the denominator — total crypto market cap — must be contracting. That's what this chart is saying, and it's invisible if you only look at the top panel.
2022-2023: same signature. Dominance peaks around 9.1%, and on the bottom panel you can see USDT supply contracting meaningfully over the same window (from \~83B down toward \~65-70B). That wasn't dry powder accumulating. That was the bear market: the market collapsing while money genuinely exited the ecosystem.
Today dominance sits at 8.5%, just below that peak, with the same absence of net inflows.
Limitations of this comparison (important)
I'd rather raise these myself than leave them for the comments:
1. The magnitudes aren't comparable. In 2022-2023 supply actually contracted, on the order of −20%. In 2026 it's a plateau with marginal weekly moves (−0.02%). What they share is the absence of net inflows, not the intensity. This is a growth stall, not a collapse.
2. Two occurrences aren't a statistic. I'm showing what this configuration looked like last time. I'm not claiming the outcome repeats.
3. The context changed. Spot ETFs didn't exist in 2022. Part of institutional capital no longer needs to route through stablecoins to get exposure — so this indicator captures TradFi flow less well than it used to. It mostly tells you what's happening inside crypto-native markets.
4. The levels aren't identical. \~9.1% in 2022 versus 8.5% today.
USDT ≠ USDC: the layer above
Aggregating all stablecoins throws away the most interesting information.
USDT — offshore-dominant, Asia, retail, non-US exchanges, perp markets. It's leverage collateral. Its supply reflects global speculative appetite.
USDC — regulated, US rails, DeFi, corporate treasuries, banking on/off-ramp. Its supply reflects institutional capital.
The divergences are the real signal:
USDC ↑, USDT flat → institutional money via US rails. Slower, generally more durable.
USDT ↑, USDC flat → offshore leverage and speculation. Faster, more fragile.
Both contracting → global deleveraging. Money leaving crypto.
One level deeper: supply by chain. Stables flowing onto one chain while global supply stagnates isn't new money — it's capital rotation. Invisible on an aggregate dominance chart. (Not available on TradingView; use DefiLlama.)
Other caveats worth knowing
Not every mint is new money. There's cross-chain rebalancing and treasury pre-positioning. Look at smoothed net mints, never the isolated event.
This is a slow indicator. Regime context, not entry timing. Don't build an intraday trade on it.
Correlation ≠ causation. Rising supply doesn't force anyone to buy. It indicates capacity, not intent.
What this actually changes
None of this gives you an entry. What it gives you is a regime filter: knowing whether you're trading in an environment where capital is genuinely available, or one where dominance is rising simply because everything around it is burning.
The two look alike on a chart. They don't have the same follow-through.
What I'm watching for a regime change: supply resuming its uptrend, not dominance falling. If USDT.D drops while supply keeps contracting, that's a false signal of exactly the kind described above.
Data: TradingView (USDT.D, CRYPTOCAP:USDT, CRYPTOCAP:TOTAL), DefiLlama for per-chain breakdown.
Do you track stablecoin supply in your process? Curious whether anyone here watches the per-chain split, and on what horizon you find it actionable.

yes, absolutely — and it's happened multiple times already. the mechanism depends on the stablecoin type:
**algorithmic (UST/Luna):** classic death spiral. redemption pressure drops the backing asset price, which reduces collateral value, which triggers more redemptions. UST lost $40B in 3 days because there was no real floor
**collateralized fiat-backed (USDC, USDT):** theoretically resistant if truly 1:1 backed, but USDC had a mini bank-run in March 2023 when $3.3B was stuck in Silicon Valley Bank. price dropped to $0.87 before Circle confirmed the funds were safe. people who panic-sold locked in real losses
**CDP / overcollateralized (DAI, LUSD, crvUSD):** more resistant because redemptions are handled by liquidating underwater collateral. the risk is a liquidation cascade during a fast market crash — if collateral drops faster than liquidators can act, bad debt accrues
the bank-run-resistant designs are the ones with immediate, trustless redemption mechanisms. LUSD lets you always redeem 1 LUSD for $1 of ETH directly from the protocol — that hard floor prevents the spiral because arbitrageurs step in at $0.99

AI is the new crypto. Alts are dead. Basically it’s only BTC and ETH.

I'm still blown away that after years of posts like these, people still believe this somehow magically means ETH should be a high price

Happy that i invested all my money in Ramen and not ETH

I think I was pretty clear:
If ETH is not the original chain, neither is BTC.

I dont know what you mean, but ETH is not the original chain. nothing with double standards.

You don't swap USDC to ETH. You buy it. ETH's price is dynamic. I don't get how you can say you left $210 on a table. If you just look at the chart ETH has been on a relief rally from last week. You set a limit order to get the number of ETH you want for 12k usdc.

That's because these protocols rely on the interest rate carry trade.
Individuals and institutions making 0.5-2% on their cash are forced to search for yield.
They found that yield in Aave, Compound, Curve, etc back in 2021. So, they borrowed money from real banks to put into DeFi.
The orgy of liquidity spills over to ETH, and when ETH gets congested, it spills into MATIC.
Can't do that on 4.7% 10 year Treasuries.

How secure is ETH?

update on the btc level - 04:00 4h candle literally closed at $65,499. one dollar shy. then the 08:00 open wicked to $65,508 and sold straight back to $65,370. not a reclaim, just a test/rejection at the level. ETH hit $1,909 in that same candle, also rejected hard. both levels held as resistance exactly where i was watching. lower highs still intact, sitting flat. no rush.

PSA: Es gilt auch hier Regel 8, Kryptodiskussionen sind begrenzt
Es dürfen nur die folgenden Kryptowährungen diskutiert werden: BTC, ETH, LTC, BCH Allgemeine Diskussionen z.B. zur Besteuerung sind erlaubt. Als Alternative steht [r/Kryptostrassenwetten](https://www.reddit.com/r/Kryptostrassenwetten/) zur Verfügung

To build on that, post-Pectra slashing penalties are much smaller. I think they start at about .007 ETH.
Also the calculator math uses 1 ETH = $4000 😭

Is it not the price movement of ETH that's increasing TVL?

Nur BTC und ETH. Langfristig investieren und kaufen wenn günstig.

for large swaps the main enemy is MEV and price impact, not just the fee. a few options that help:
CoW Protocol (cow.fi) uses batch auctions where your order gets matched against other orders first before touching AMM liquidity. you often get better rates than 1inch on large ETH/stablecoin swaps because there's no front-running
1inch Fusion mode works similarly — it uses "resolvers" who compete to fill your order off-chain, with MEV protection built in
for cross-chain large swaps, Li.fi or Bungee aggregate multiple bridge+swap routes and show you the total cost including LP spread, which most bridges hide
also worth splitting a very large swap over 2-3 txns an hour apart if the pool is shallow — reduces price impact more than any aggregator can

interesting week - ETH keeps stalling under $2000 while the on-chain stuff keeps building. the gnosis EEZ news was underreported imo, an L1 voluntarily converting to a rollup because their validator decentralization failed is a pretty significant moment. shows that the "everyone will have their own L1" thesis has real limits when you actually try to run one.
the builder activity numbers from earlier this week are also interesting context. 192% up while price is flat usually means accumulation phase or actual utility growth, not speculation. watching to see which one it is.

for 1 validator the risk is 1 ETH? so $1800 (ETH/USD) risk/year, but the product costs $1188/year? seems to0 expensive to pay \~$1200/year to potentially not lose a further $600.