Z
Zillow Group, Inc. Class C Capital Stock
stock NASDAQ

A valid option, but different trade offs.
Peg in and peg out to LBTC have fees involved too, that can be higher than the coordinator, depending on some factors.
LBTC also requires trust in the _Federation_ of members and the swap provider (a landscape which I don't like since Boltz, one of my favourite, sunset itself).
Further, are you proposing this sequence?
My on chain address X.
Swap in, by depositing on-chain to Y (generated by Boltz).
But my LBTC address is A. For safety, I can do something like A->B->C->D.
Then I swap out from D->Z where Z is my on-chain address.
So the on-chain movement looks like X->Y
Some unknown address->Z
But the _Federation_ members can link X->Z assuming LBTC maintains its own blockchain?

No. The guys I’ve worked with are either former athletes, have another interest outside of the desk, or both. They’re smart and fluent when it comes to their job, but it definitely isn’t everything.
Also these people have kids or are just starting their family. I’m on the younger side of things for sure so it’s interesting when most of your colleagues are mid to late 30s and above. I’m not even 25.
I honestly enjoy working with people from the older generations. It gives me perspective and keeps me on my toes. They also have cool stories. This is a little off topic, but gen Z (my gen) is quite bland. Not necessarily in this business (yet), but in general.
I honestly think my biggest fear is growing up. Imagine leaving your firm in the hands of kids who grew up doomscrolling and hitting tik tok dances. Oh- and mix in a pandemic for that arrested development lol and this is the shit that crosses my mind during the day hahaha

Hausrat kann noch Fahrraddiebstahlschutz inkludiert haben. Z.B. Keller und/oder Außerhaus.
 
Schützt somit alle Fahrräder der Familie und das ist nun mal der Gegenstand der mit am meisten entwendet wird. 
Nur dafür lohnt es sich, in einer Stadt. 
Wir hatten schon einen Diebstahl. Zack hat sich gelohnt. Das Geld hätte ich nun entnehmen müssen oder halt nicht investieren. 

You must be one of the Gen Z kids who had standardized testing instead of actually learning vocabulary.
* The condition of being in action; operation.
* The means or mode of acting; instrumentality.
* A business with agents that negotiate deals for clients. "a talent agency; a real estate agency."
* An advertising or public relations firm.
* An administrative division of a government or international body.
* The faculty of acting or of exerting power; the state of being in action; action; instrumentality.

Everything I’ve read says Millennials and Gen X at least should get it, it just might be reduced if the government doesn’t figure it out. Dunno about Gen Z/Alpha.

I’m a paper trader working on a simple intraday strategy, and I’d really appreciate feedback from traders who have been doing this for a while.
I’m not profitable live yet, and I’m not claiming this strategy is profitable. I’m specifically posting because I want experienced traders to point out what is wrong with it and help me make the rules more objective.
My goal is also important: I’m a business owner, not a full-time trader. I only want to spend roughly 30–90 minutes a day trading. I’m not looking for a strategy that requires me to sit in front of charts all day.
The basic setup
I’m currently experimenting mainly with:
\- XAUUSD (Gold)
\- EURUSD
\- AUDUSD
\- A few other highly liquid forex pairs
I’m testing primarily on the 5-minute chart, with the possibility of using 15-minute candles for additional confirmation.
The basic indicator is a 9 EMA.
SHORT setup
My current rules are roughly:
1. Price is trading above the 9 EMA.
2. I get two consecutive bullish candles that are clearly separated from / not touching the 9 EMA.
3. These candles occur near a meaningful resistance area or level.
4. Price shows rejection from that resistance.
5. I mark the range of those two candles.
6. I wait for a candle to break below the low of that two-candle range and close below it.
7. That candle becomes my short entry.
8. Stop loss goes above the rejection structure / above the two-candle area.
9. I aim for approximately 1:2, 1:3 or 1:4 R:R, depending on the structure and price action.
10. If the move develops strongly, I may trail the stop instead of taking a fixed target.
LONG setup
Basically the inverse:
1. Price is trading below the 9 EMA.
2. Two consecutive bearish candles are clearly away from the 9 EMA.
3. They occur near a meaningful support area.
4. Price rejects the support.
5. I mark the range of those two candles.
6. I wait for a candle to break above the high of the two-candle range and close above it.
7. That becomes my long entry.
8. Stop loss goes below the rejection structure.
9. Target is approximately 1:2, 1:3 or 1:4 R:R, depending on the setup.
Why I’m interested in this
From the paper trading I’ve done so far, I’m seeing roughly a 50% win rate, although I don't have enough properly structured data to claim that number is statistically meaningful.
The attractive part is the potential R:R.
Because the entry is based on a relatively small structure, the stop can sometimes be quite tight while the trade has room to capture a larger move.
The idea is essentially:
extension away from EMA → rejection at a meaningful level → two-candle structure → breakout/reversal confirmation → enter early in the move.
My biggest problem
The strategy currently produces way too many possible setups.
That's actually one of my biggest concerns.
I can find what looks like a setup almost everywhere on the chart if I loosen my interpretation of:
\- What qualifies as a “meaningful” support/resistance level
\- How far the candles need to be from the 9 EMA
\- What constitutes a valid rejection
\- How strong the two candles need to be
\- Whether the setup is happening in a good trading session
\- Whether the market is trending or ranging
At the moment, I'm manually marking key levels and also experimenting with an indicator that identifies levels, but some historical levels disappear/recalculate as new levels form.
So I don't yet have a sufficiently objective rulebook.
What I'm trying to solve
I want to turn this into a mechanical enough trading plan that I can execute consistently for 30–90 minutes a day.
For example, I'm wondering whether I should restrict myself to specific sessions such as:
\- London session
\- New York session
\- A specific overlap
\- Avoiding the first 15–30 minutes of a session
\- Avoiding certain periods of low volatility
I also want to avoid both extremes:
Too little volatility: price chops around and gives false signals.
Too much volatility: my stop gets taken out by a huge candle/spike before price moves in the intended direction.
What I REALLY want feedback on
If you have significant experience with intraday trading, I'd appreciate criticism rather than encouragement.
Specifically:
1. What filters would you add?
For example:
\- Higher-timeframe trend
\- VWAP
\- ATR/volatility filter
\- Session filter
\- Market structure
\- Volume
\- ADX
\- Previous day high/low
\- Asian session high/low
\- London/NY highs and lows
\- Something else
2. How would you define support/resistance objectively?
This is probably one of my biggest weaknesses right now.
3. Would you use 5-minute or 15-minute candles for this setup?
Or perhaps 15M for context and 5M for entries?
4. How would you properly backtest this?
I’m struggling because when I scroll through historical charts, I can't always determine whether the level/setup I see now would actually have been visible at that exact moment.
I don't want to accidentally use future information when judging historical setups.
5. What would you consider a valid rejection?
This is currently somewhat discretionary, and I'd like to make it much more objective.
6. Would you trade this only during specific sessions?
If so, which sessions/times would you test for XAUUSD and major FX pairs?
7. What would you change about the risk management?
Would you use:
\- Fixed 1:2?
\- Partial at 1:2 and trail?
\- Fixed 1:3?
\- ATR-based stop?
\- Structure-based stop?
\- Something else?
One important point
I'm not looking for someone to give me another random strategy.
I want to improve this specific concept and turn it into something that can be tested properly.
If you think the entire idea is flawed, that's also useful. I'd rather find that out now while I'm paper trading than convince myself that a strategy works because I've cherry-picked good-looking examples.
If you've traded something similar, I'd especially appreciate:
“I would keep X, remove Y, add Z, and here's why.”
And if possible, I'd love to hear from people who have actually systematically backtested similar setups, rather than just eyeballing charts.
Thanks.

I think you need to get out of that small circle. There is no reason Gen Z overall would be doing this financially well lol

I'll agree Gen Z appears lazier based on my personal experiences. But it's also true grinding is less likely to provide a stable middle class life for most people than the past.

Imagine a Gen Z saying they have no opportunities to produce a living in this day and age. All the while posting this from their parents basement on their parents cell plan while they have food delivered on parents card. Puts on zoomers

Eine schlaue Strategie wäre jetzt, da du einen Fahrplan hast, jemand anders für dich bezahlen zu lassen, der keine Zinsen zahlt. Z.b. dein Freundeskreis. Wie viele wissen denn von dieser Summe?

Moin,
also mit Kurswert und Nominalwert bist du schon fast dran.
Aber die Rendite kommt durch den Kupon und den Kurswert zusammen.
Sprich die Anleihe kann einen Kupon von 0% haben, weil sie Inder Nullzinsphase ausgeben wurde. Du kannst aber trotzdem z.B. 4% Rendite haben, weil du sie unter dem Nominalwert kaufst.
Und warum kriegst du sie unter dem Nominalwert? Z.B. weil sie nur noch zwei Jahre läuft und neu ausgegebene zwei jährige Staatsanleihen entsprechende Zinsen zahlen. Dann wird die Zinsdifferenz über den Kurs ausgeglichen.
Funktioniert nicht perfekt, aber erklärt auch gut warum kurzlaugende Staatsanleihen praktisch nicht schwanken (da bei wenigen Monaten auch eine hohe Zinsdifferenz, wenig ausmacht) und langlaufende Staatsanleihen so stark auf Zinsänderungen reagieren (zehn Jahre lang beispielsweise 2% weniger Zinsen auszugleichen ist halt teuer).

College next year gonna be exorbitant. Calls on Z FAFSA

Isnt this the same guy who went on jubilee to talk to the gen Z?

Just to start out and trial its use. I was trying to build software on my machine that simply fetches information like notify me when X, Y, Z news items and notable changes occur like for example US Treasury statements or CBO projection changes.
Opus been running for 45 minutes, now asking me approve "call_trigger key id 32871293875" some random string ID. I was like, uh I have no idea what you're even asking but approve.... Saying shit like {human initiated} request.
This honestly feels retarded that I'm even trying this much lol. It just doesn't seem polished and ready for non coders.

Setz dir ne Aufteilung. Z.b. 70 Anlage, 30 Cash. Teil deine Sparquote künftig danach auf. 
Aber du brauchst mindestens 10k jederzeit flüssig, und wenn du es gerade nicht brauchst bist du umso flexibler, außerdem sind ein paar Euro Zinsen im Monat auch nice. 

TL;DR our society has completely failed young people.
We shoved social media and screens in their hands/faces and complain when they spend all their time scrolling alone.
We shut down their schools and gathering places during a deadly pandemic and complain when they can’t navigate social situations.
We demanded they use AI without guidance or guardrails and clutch our pearls when these tools erode their writing and critical thinking.
We refuse to hire them or give them internships then bitch that “the kids don’t want to work” and moan about how unequipped they are for professional spaces.
We jacked up the cost of living by refusing to provide enough housing or accessible health care and we whine about many Gen Z still live at home with their parents.
America owes young people a fucking apology and a better deal.

When staying at a job is disincentivized, since you can get laid off/fired if the winds change, why would they NOT job hop? Resident “generationally fucked” Gen Z here, and were a a little tired of being tarred and feathered for responding with pretty reasonable (albeit not very useful) nihilism to the crock of shit we inherited. We have no resilience for sticking it out in a single job because we know resilience doesn’t get you anywhere. Jobs lay you off if the winds change, especially if it’s a lucrative tech job that is one of the only high-acceleration financial starts available to Gen Z youth who aren’t already wealthy. Every CEO threatens laying off an entire generation the moment the starting pistol went off for them. We’re mad, tired, and not willing to keep our heads down for a future we know isn’t coming.
Gen Z is too online, for sure, but they aren’t blind to ways those at the top keep everyone else stupid, poor, and at each other’s throats. They just need to vote more lol.

It is Gen X and boomers who are most in love with AI content. Gen Z and Alpha tend to be AI ‘haters’. Milennials are a mixed bag.

Gen Z?

Wenn dir Agglomerationseffekte wichtig sind, sollte der Staat jede Sozialhilfe streichen damit nur noch High Performer in Ballungszentren wohnen (und ihre Produktivität gegenseitig bestmöglich verstärken). 
Wie sollen unelastische Nachfragen zu Ineffizienz führen? So lange man ausreichenden Wettbewerb auf der Angebotsseite hat, sind die Preise kompetitiv und reflektieren einfach Angebot und Nachfrage. Sicherlich sorgt Z.B. Regulation von Neubauten für ein mangelndes Angebot und steigende Preise (und potenzielle Ineffizienzen), aber das hat nichts mit klassischem Marktversagen zu tun.
In Berlin besitzen Börsennotierte Konzerne 15% (zusammen!) der Mietwohnungen, das ist eine extrem niedrige Konzentration. Deutschlandweit besitzt Vonovia etwa 1% des Wohnraums.
Die Lebensmittelpreise sind in Deutschland extrem niedrig, was gegen Monopolisierung spricht.
Was sind die anderen Gründe?