Core Insights - The article compares two leveraged ETFs, ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) and ProShares UltraPro QQQ (TQQQ), focusing on their structure, risk profile, and performance for investors seeking Nasdaq-100 exposure [1][2]. Cost & Size - QLD has an expense ratio of 0.95% and TQQQ has a lower expense ratio of 0.82% - As of December 22, 2025, QLD's one-year return is 28.60% while TQQQ's is 30.72% - TQQQ offers a higher dividend yield of 0.72% compared to QLD's 0.18% - TQQQ has a larger assets under management (AUM) of $30.9 billion versus QLD's $10.6 billion [3]. Performance & Risk Comparison - Over the last five years, QLD experienced a maximum drawdown of -63.68%, while TQQQ faced a more severe drawdown of -81.65% - An investment of $1,000 would have grown to $2,564 with QLD and $2,500 with TQQQ over the same period [4]. Portfolio Composition - TQQQ holds 101 positions, with a focus on technology (55%), communication services (17%), and consumer cyclical (13%) - Major holdings in TQQQ include Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft [5]. Investment Strategy - Both QLD and TQQQ are designed for short-term investments due to their daily leverage reset mechanism, which can lead to significant divergence from the underlying index if held long-term [6][10]. - TQQQ's higher leverage factor aims for three times the daily return, making it potentially more lucrative but also riskier compared to QLD, which targets two times the daily return [8]. Recent Performance Trends - Despite TQQQ's higher risk profile, its 12-month returns have only marginally outperformed QLD, and it has underperformed QLD over the last five years [9].

RT Breakout (@breakoutprop)This is impressive.Recovering a 2.5% drawdown all the way to a payout.Big payouts are flashy, but staying disciplined during drawdown and climbing back up shows great skill.Well done! https://t.co/0FAXPfvtpH ...

Based on the provided content, it's challenging to extract industry-specific insights due to the lack of context and the informal nature of the text Sentiment Analysis - The text expresses a sentiment of resilience and anticipation of future success after experiencing setbacks [1] Personal Development - The author views challenges as opportunities for growth and self-improvement, referencing a "zaraki arc" which implies a significant personal transformation [1]

Project Location & Distribution - Over 50% of project teams for 38 previously high-profile tokens with significant wallet clustering list the United States as their location [1] - Europe and India are also listed as project team locations, following the United States [1] Token Performance - The minimum drawdown for these tokens is 78% [1] - More than half of the tokens have fallen by up to 99% [1] - Examples of tokens with significant price drops include MELANIA and CR7 Fake [1]

Another explanation for why this 30% drawdown feels so much worse than the past fewThe velocity of the drawdown has been substantially higher for this recent pullback then the prior twoJames Van Straten (@btcjvs):Third 30% correction for BTC this cycle.Each correction, the time from peak to trough has compressed, this has accelerated the max fear sentiment.- August 2024 (Yen Carry): 147 days- April 2025: (Tariffs) 77 days- November 2025: 42 days https://t.co/77shr5k1Rs ...

Market Sentiment - 95% of Bitcoin held by short-term holders (those who bought less than 155 days ago) is underwater [1] - The current drawdown's speed and severity are unprecedented, even compared to previous 30% drawdowns [1] - New entrants are experiencing the worst whiplash in Bitcoin's history [1] On-Chain Analysis - The short-term holder supply in profit/loss ratio is at its lowest point ever in Bitcoin's history [1]

Risk Management - Crypto market participants unable to tolerate a 20% drawdown should exit the market entirely [1] - Consider alternative investments such as bonds or cash [1] Market Advice - The market suggests considering investments in pacifiers and diapers, implying a focus on stable, long-term needs [1] Market Size - The market discusses trillions, indicating a substantial scale of financial activity [1]

Core Argument - The argument that a funded account is equivalent to its maximum drawdown is flawed, as buying power and loss budget are distinct [1] - Funded accounts offer higher leverage compared to personal accounts, reducing the risk of liquidation [2][3] - Funded accounts provide limited downside risk (evaluation fee) and unlimited upside potential, with risk managed through drawdown rules [4] Value Proposition of Funded Accounts - Funded accounts offer a significantly higher dollar per risk ($/R) compared to personal accounts, allowing for larger potential payouts with a smaller fraction of drawdown [3] - Breakout accounts provide leverage (5x for BTC, 2x for alts), making it challenging to replicate the notional value with personal accounts [3] - With a larger capital base in funded accounts, traders can achieve the same dollar return with less risk [5] Industry Context and Validation - The funded account model has been successful in FX and futures for over a decade, demonstrating its viability [4] - Top traders on the platform have generated substantial profits, indicating the potential of the product [4] - The company emphasizes that its product is not a scam, highlighting its acquisition by Kraken after due diligence [4]