Sometimes you just have to move on, and that time is now.
As it turns out the consensus is 7-10yr exponential curve and ~2%/mth return. Now, as mentioned in a previous thread, there are ways to do it differently and have been looking at automating where it turns out have hit a wall of the knowledge.
What is surprising is that everyone is too nervous to even ask the question, a probability of 2% on an exponential curve is better than possible failure on a logarithmic curve at 20%. The problem here is that due to my history I have some rather interesting access to technology, but as it's just me I have been finding it difficult to harness its full potential.
It turns out that 20% return on capital per quarter using discretionary is better than 2% per month using automation, as in the end the same 7-10yr timeframe applies only the amount of work is a lot different. The idea was to generate 20% per quarter with automation, actually the plan was 250-400% per year as the tech is available to do it. But given the 2% per month bias, the workload and team structure necessary to achieve this is not readily available, and collaboration is not on the cards because they need to know they can trust the third parties.
What no one knows is that have free access to Tier2 karlie.trading.studio and also access to Gisele, ok have to have an $8.5mn waiver but that's secondary. The reason I have this is by being trusted not to pyramid based on history and also being involved from the ground up. You see, this experience comes from the most knowledgeable people there are, family lunches with 10digit millionaires, institutional partners and consultants to ceos of multi-nationals. Thought it might be helpful to pass some of it on as have some spare time, and if seeing anyone wanted a break to use their knowledge more efficiently along the way and you never know, some bright spark may have had an idea that could be harnessed to take the institutions head on.
Most people are looking to generate 2:1; when you understand either yourself or other people you get 5:1; when you understand yourself and other people you get 10:1; and when you understand yourself, other people, and also know less is more keeping information private valuing trust over money, you can get to 100:1. And that is where all the problems start, people don't like other people with 5:1 and above experience and technology. And that was my mistake, 2:1 is the going rate and I'm coming in with 10:1 and 100:1 thinking others may want to gain from some of that knowledge, it's was never going to fit.
Which explains some of the 'interesting' comments that have been made along the way so am including this, there is a reason people trust the technology to me, a company gave me a €50,000 license to their enterprise software as knew could use it is a useful way, just haven't got around to it yet.
So one last thank you, to GAT, who shed light on the reason why there was no traction with 5:1 and above. There really are some knowledgeable people on the forum, it's a shame they are often drowned out by the 1:1 crowd.
As it turns out the consensus is 7-10yr exponential curve and ~2%/mth return. Now, as mentioned in a previous thread, there are ways to do it differently and have been looking at automating where it turns out have hit a wall of the knowledge.
What is surprising is that everyone is too nervous to even ask the question, a probability of 2% on an exponential curve is better than possible failure on a logarithmic curve at 20%. The problem here is that due to my history I have some rather interesting access to technology, but as it's just me I have been finding it difficult to harness its full potential.
It turns out that 20% return on capital per quarter using discretionary is better than 2% per month using automation, as in the end the same 7-10yr timeframe applies only the amount of work is a lot different. The idea was to generate 20% per quarter with automation, actually the plan was 250-400% per year as the tech is available to do it. But given the 2% per month bias, the workload and team structure necessary to achieve this is not readily available, and collaboration is not on the cards because they need to know they can trust the third parties.
What no one knows is that have free access to Tier2 karlie.trading.studio and also access to Gisele, ok have to have an $8.5mn waiver but that's secondary. The reason I have this is by being trusted not to pyramid based on history and also being involved from the ground up. You see, this experience comes from the most knowledgeable people there are, family lunches with 10digit millionaires, institutional partners and consultants to ceos of multi-nationals. Thought it might be helpful to pass some of it on as have some spare time, and if seeing anyone wanted a break to use their knowledge more efficiently along the way and you never know, some bright spark may have had an idea that could be harnessed to take the institutions head on.
Most people are looking to generate 2:1; when you understand either yourself or other people you get 5:1; when you understand yourself and other people you get 10:1; and when you understand yourself, other people, and also know less is more keeping information private valuing trust over money, you can get to 100:1. And that is where all the problems start, people don't like other people with 5:1 and above experience and technology. And that was my mistake, 2:1 is the going rate and I'm coming in with 10:1 and 100:1 thinking others may want to gain from some of that knowledge, it's was never going to fit.
Which explains some of the 'interesting' comments that have been made along the way so am including this, there is a reason people trust the technology to me, a company gave me a €50,000 license to their enterprise software as knew could use it is a useful way, just haven't got around to it yet.
So one last thank you, to GAT, who shed light on the reason why there was no traction with 5:1 and above. There really are some knowledgeable people on the forum, it's a shame they are often drowned out by the 1:1 crowd.
Last edited:
-- so what's the bottom line to all of that big post...
