Altcoin trading strategy: taking profits without chasing rallies

I find the cash plan more useful than the price targets in Michaël van de Poppe's altcoin trading strategy. He wants to reduce exposure as successful positions grow and leave money available for another opportunity. His goal is to accumulate Bitcoin, so a gain in dollars alone is not enough to judge whether a trade worked.

An altcoin trading strategy needs a benchmark

An altcoin, a crypto asset other than Bitcoin, can rise in dollars while lagging behind Bitcoin. The creator checks both USD pairs and Bitcoin pairs to distinguish those outcomes. A USD pair prices the asset in dollars; a Bitcoin pair prices it in BTC and lets him measure progress toward his stated goal.

Chainlink is his example. In his reading of the charts, it reached its dollar peak in the summer of 2021, while its Bitcoin pair peaked in the summer of 2020 during DeFi summer. That period took its name from interest in financial applications built around crypto networks. By the later dollar peak, he says, Chainlink had suffered a 50% drawdown against Bitcoin.

I would choose the benchmark before judging the return. For someone measuring dollar wealth, the dollar gain answers one question. For someone accumulating BTC, the comparison is whether holding the altcoin produced more Bitcoin than holding Bitcoin would have. Switching between those goals after the trade makes it too easy to choose the more flattering result.

The creator ultimately wants to hold Bitcoin because he believes in its scarcity and monetary role. That preference does not mean he always holds it in his trading portfolio. He is willing to own altcoins or cash when he thinks they offer a better route toward his goal.

He argues that sharp upward moves in Bitcoin can leave altcoins underperforming against BTC, and that traders eventually move altcoin profits into Bitcoin. I would treat this as a thesis to check against prices, not a timetable. The pair records relative performance; it cannot establish when another rotation will happen.

Narratives can peak before the enthusiasm fades

A narrative gives buyers a shared reason to pay attention to an asset or group of assets. The creator argues that these stories run through cycles: interest builds, prices rise and capital eventually moves to another theme. His concern is how much buying demand remains after a story has already attracted widespread attention.

He uses Zcash to explain the problem. He describes a correction from $600 to $200, another run back to $600, and then a move from $400 at the end of August to nearly $1,700 in September. He characterizes that last move as a 250% run and believes the narrative had become difficult to strengthen much further.

I would separate interest in the project from willingness to buy at that price. The story can remain convincing while fewer buyers are prepared to pay more. The creator reads consolidation, when the price moves within a range, as a possible sign that the balance between buyers and sellers is changing.

A pause does not establish that the story is finished, either. The practical issue is whether the position still fits the trader's risk limit. Continued enthusiasm does not settle that question, particularly after a large advance has increased the amount of money exposed to the asset.

In the creator's assessment, Zcash could correct toward $800 to $600 and still retain a bullish structure. That is a possible pullback he considers compatible with an upward trend, rather than a price he says it must reach. His argument allows for severe declines within a strong market.

I would not assume the trend survives just because the chart once looked strong. Buyers may not return, attention may move permanently or confidence in the asset may weaken. Those possibilities matter when deciding whether a decline offers another entry or undermines the reason for holding it.

A lower price is not proof of a bottom

The creator prefers buying after substantial corrections to adding aggressively after a large advance. NEAR illustrates his reasoning: he cites a move from $1.20 toward $3.50, a correction to $1.60 and a later rally north of $5. The path included a substantial setback before the next advance.

At the time of his discussion, he places NEAR at $5.50 and considers a possible return toward $2.60. He says an entry at the higher price could face a 50% correction even if the broader chart stayed bullish. He wants cash available to reconsider the asset lower down.

I agree with separating interest in an asset from interest in its current price. I am less comfortable with describing bottoms as the lowest-risk entries. A bottom is identifiable afterward; during a fall, the cheaper price may be another stop on the way down.

A lower entry also does not establish that the investment case remains intact. I would want the reason for considering the asset to survive the decline, rather than depend on its previous high. Otherwise, the old price becomes the argument for buying, even though the conditions that supported it may have changed.

The creator says pursuing a 20, 30, 40, 50x outcome over a year or two can require sitting through corrections between 70 to 90%. These are his descriptions of what such a holding period may involve, not promised returns. His alternative is to take profits repeatedly rather than hold through every setback.

I see those as different commitments. Someone planning to tolerate extreme losses needs to decide how much capital they are prepared to expose and whether they can stay with that plan. Without that decision, a long-term holding can become a sale at the worst moment, or a short trade can become an indefinite position.

Cash changes what the portfolio can do next

The creator calls his approach a barbell, with speculative altcoins on one side and cash on the other. Here, the term means balancing assets that can move sharply with money reserved for later decisions. He reports around 20% cash and considers a Bitcoin correction toward 70 to 75k possible.

That reserve would let him respond without first selling another holding into a falling market. I find this a more concrete reason for cash than trying to predict the exact top. A fully invested portfolio can have considerable market value but still require a sale, more exposure or additional capital before its owner can buy anything else.

There is a cost to waiting. If altcoins keep rising, the cash portion misses those gains. The creator accepts that trade-off because he does not know how long the bull cycle will last. His plan is to reduce exposure as the speculative holdings become more valuable, rather than rely on one perfectly timed exit.

He separates this trading account from his wider investment portfolio. As gains accumulate, he intends to move some value toward Bitcoin and gold, with stocks and bonds also possible destinations. These are proposed allocation choices, not a claim that the assets have the same risks.

I would be cautious about his use of the phrase risk-free. Bitcoin, gold and stocks can lose market value, and bonds also carry risks. The spreadsheet includes USDC, a stablecoin designed to track a reference value. Stablecoins have issuer and price-stability risks, so I would not equate a cash-like crypto balance with money held outside the crypto system.

Position size matters even when the price is moving in the desired direction. A successful asset can become a larger share of the account without another purchase. Selling part of it reduces dependence on that holding; the decision need not imply that the project is poor or that its next move will be down.

Rotations explain the portfolio better than the balance

The creator says he began holding the altcoin portfolio in 2024 and continued through 2025, losing substantial value. He then added capital through DCA, or dollar-cost averaging, which spreads purchases over time. He also changed his approach from holding indefinitely to trading positions.

The spreadsheet is titled "Total Invested $200,000.00". He describes the portfolio as around 175 to 180k and cites a low of 75k on August 1 after additional allocations. Because contributions changed, those balances do not form a return series from one fixed starting investment.

I would not use the recovery from the low alone to judge the strategy. Added money, market moves and trades all affect the balance. The useful distinction is between what he contributed and what the holdings earned or lost. Without it, a larger account can look like a better trading result than it was.

His NEAR and GRASS rotation gives a more specific account of the decisions. He reports selling NEAR at roughly $3.50 to $5, also mentioning $4, and using the proceeds to buy GRASS. NEAR had been one of his largest positions 2 months earlier; it became one of his smallest.

For GRASS, he reports an average purchase price of $0.33 and sales from $0.58 to $0.80, mostly at $0.80. His original exit target was $0.60 to $0.65. He says the rotation returned more than continuing to hold NEAR and helped him build cash.

These are the four holdings he identifies as his largest in the recorded portfolio snapshot:

I read those positions as continued commitment to altcoin trading, despite his plans to reduce exposure on strength. He has not left the market; he is trying to make room for later decisions while keeping substantial positions open.

A rotation can also disappoint: the asset sold may keep rising while the replacement underperforms. The video does not specify trading fees or order execution rules. Those costs and conditions belong in any assessment of whether the reported rotations can be repeated.

Exit levels turn a broad idea into a decision

The creator describes EigenLayer as consolidating and sees no reason to sell yet. In his plan, a break above the range high of $0.31 would matter if the price continued toward $0.73. The response would depend on how large the position became, rather than on the breakout alone.

He intends to sell in stages once the allocation grows too large, then consider closing it and waiting for another opportunity. These are his stated levels for EigenLayer and Bittensor, not recommendations or guaranteed future prices:

I find the allocation rule more useful than a single target. It asks how much of the account now depends on one asset and whether that amount still fits the plan. Waiting for one ideal sale price leaves that concentration unaddressed until the target arrives, if it arrives at all.

The creator accepts that he may sell early. He argues that controlling portfolio risk can improve returns and reduce variance, meaning the degree to which results fluctuate. That is his expectation. During an uninterrupted advance, the same selling plan can produce a lower return than continuing to hold.

His optimistic portfolio scenarios depend on further gains. He says an EigenLayer advance could leave him with 50k made on that position and an overall portfolio of 400 to 500k. Elsewhere, he projects a possible rise to 400, 500, 600k over the coming few months.

I would evaluate the exit plan separately from those projections. A planned reduction can be assessed even if the hoped-for balance never arrives. Deciding in advance also gives the trader a reference point if a much larger position later makes selling harder, though it cannot remove uncertainty about the next move.

Strong performers and short trades need separate logic

The creator watches what he calls hot runners, assets that have already performed strongly. His examples include Hyperliquid, Zcash and NEAR. He believes their previous strength may help identify where demand returns after a broader correction.

He expects a market-wide correction between 50 to 70% later in the year or in Q1 next year. If it happens, he wants to allocate more to assets that showed strength. Solana's performance in the previous cycle supports his preference for established performers over buying laggards indiscriminately.

I would use previous strength to narrow the candidates, not to assume recovery. The plan still needs buyers to return to those assets. A former leader can remain out of favor, and a large discount to an old high does not prevent another decline.

His proposed entries follow corrections, while his exits follow advances. That differs from buying because a rally is already attracting attention. For the two parts to work together, he needs both unspent capital and a willingness to reconsider whether the earlier investment case still holds.

He also reserves cash for quick multi-day trades or a swing trade lasting about a week. Those trades seek a shorter price move rather than a long holding period. One proposed opportunity is a downward liquidity squeeze caused by leveraged positions, when forced selling can accelerate a decline.

I would keep the reason for that short trade separate from the reason for a longer allocation. A sharp fall may rebound or continue. If the expected rebound fails, leaving the position open indefinitely would change the plan rather than fulfill it.

Fast markets can make execution difficult, and frequent decisions leave more room for emotional mistakes. I would therefore judge this as an approach that requires attention and judgment, not as an automatic set of price triggers. The reserve alone does not decide which opportunity deserves the money.

Judge the process with a written trade record

I would assess this strategy through a record of its decisions. The intended benchmark and reason for choosing an asset should be clear before the result is known. So should the condition that would invalidate that reason. A later explanation is less useful if it has changed to fit the price.

An exit caused by concentration deserves a different entry in that record from one caused by a failed thesis. Reducing an oversized winner addresses the account's allocation. Leaving because expected demand has not appeared addresses the reason for the trade. Mixing them makes it harder to judge either decision.

For rotations, I would compare the sold asset and its replacement over the same period, including transaction costs. Short trades also need identifiable entry and exit reasons, so they do not disappear into longer holdings after a loss. The record can show whether reserved cash went into a planned opportunity or was spent because waiting became uncomfortable.

For this portfolio, the contribution history is just as important as the trades. Separating new money from trading results is necessary to assess the recovery from the reported low; otherwise, deposits can be mistaken for investment gains.