Frequently asked questions

Each daily reading estimates a single thing: how likely Bitcoin is to fall more than 10% below the next day's opening price at some point in the 10 days that begin with that open. Those are 10 calendar days, not trading days, because Bitcoin trades every day; the fall is measured from that opening price down to the lowest price reached inside the window; and it has to be more than 10%, so a fall of exactly 10% does not count. It is a risk-of-a-drop estimate, not a price forecast, and not advice.

It is a look back at how the methodology would have behaved on past data — never a live or real-time call, and always shown with plain caveats about how far the outcomes have been allowed to play out. Every published reading can be viewed a day at a time on the home page.

Most holders here DCA — adding a fixed amount on a schedule. That is a sound approach and we are not here to change it. What a daily risk reading adds is information a steady accumulator can use: whether conditions right now look structurally fragile — more exposed to a further drop — or relatively calm. Some treat that as context for when to add this period's amount and when to wait for calmer conditions; others keep accumulating on schedule regardless. It also flags when elevated risk has eased. Either way it describes conditions — it never tells you what to do with your position — and we will not claim that timing your additions this way beats accumulating on a fixed schedule until the evidence says so. And it spares you the screen: a single calm read each day instead of refreshing the chart to be sure you are not the last to know.

It is exactly the right question to ask anyone selling a market signal.

The honest answer starts here: we are not selling a secret you have to take on faith, and we are not selling the record either. The record is the proof, not the product — it is free to read and free to check, with no account and no paywall, and it stays that way. The readings covered by our published Bitcoin timestamp carry an independently provable date, so any later edit to them would be detectable. That timestamp covers a fixed window of matured readings, not the whole record; the verify page names the exact dates and shows you how to check them yourself. The separately labeled homepage preview is not part of that timestamped set. A hidden 'edge' is precisely what stops you from auditing it; ours is built to be audited.

So what would there be to pay for? Delivery, never the readings themselves. At launch, the paid tier is planned around delivery and depth: a notification when the reading changes, a daily digest, and export and query access over the record. Paying buys delivery, monitoring and tooling — not a better reading, and not a fact that free readers never see. Nothing is on sale yet: the paid tier activates at operational launch, with no charges before that, while today's reading and the record of past readings are free to everyone and stay free.

There is also a reason sharing it does not erode it. This is a read on structural market conditions — the underlying state of the market — not a fleeting price-action trade that others can front-run or crowd out. A fast 'this exact price right now' signal decays the moment everyone piles into it; a daily read of whether the regime is fragile or calm does not, because its value is in helping you see and manage downside risk, not in racing others to a momentary mispricing. More people seeing it does not use it up.

And we do not claim a proven edge yet. We are pre-launch, testing in the open whether this beats simply holding Bitcoin, and we will publish that result either way. A secret system you are asked to trust blindly is what this industry is full of — and the opposite of what we are building.

The model crossed its threshold on that day's inputs. That is the answer, and it is a stance we hold on purpose, not a gap we are hoping you will not notice.

We publish the reading the model produced — never a headline, an event, or a story pinned onto the move after the fact. The model does not produce that kind of causal account, so we do not write it on the model's behalf and print it underneath the reading as if it did.

A narrative attached to a reading after the fact is a story, not a measurement, and a reader handed a story cannot tell whether the model produced it or we did. A manufactured explanation is no more trustworthy than a guess dressed up in causal language — and dressing up the model's output that way would misrepresent what the system actually knows: a level against a threshold, not a reason.

So the silence on "why" is deliberate, and it is the same discipline that governs everything we publish alongside a reading: a measurement is not a reason. If we ever started decorating every Elevated day with a tidy explanation, that would be the day to trust the reading less, not more.

The model reads Bitcoin's own price and volume history — that is all it reads — and turns what it finds into a probability of the fall described at the top of this page. That probability is then compared against a fixed line. Above the line, the day publishes as Elevated; below it, Calm. That comparison is the entire decision: no editorial step, no discretion on the day, and nobody checking the headlines before the word goes out.

The line is not chosen day by day. It was fixed in advance from research on past data, and it is not re-picked to suit a particular day. That is deliberate, and it is the part worth understanding: a line that gets nudged once you can already see how the day turned out is no longer a measurement. It is a story about the day, written with the answer in hand.

So there is no per-day reason to hand you, and that is a description of the machinery rather than a policy we chose afterwards. The model does not compute a cause. It computes a level, and the level either clears the line or it does not. Anything beyond that — this rally, that announcement, the mood of the week — would be us writing a cause the model never produced and printing it underneath the model's own output.

What we publish instead is the part that can be checked: the same line, applied the same way, to every reading we put out, each viewable a day at a time on the home page — including the readings that said Calm and were followed by a fall. We do not claim a proven edge, and every reading publishes as research in validation rather than advice. That is a weaker offer than a tidy explanation for today, and it is the offer we can stand behind.