I skimmed your article and am now going to give you the kind of feedback that my professors gave me when I studied finance there. Your article has no merit.

Finance was one of the specialties that I was examined in as a Ph.D. student in economics (at the Universit of Chicago). I would be willing to take the time to elaborate on my "no merit" assessment if you are willing to endure the pain.

My main objection to your essay is that it encourages amateurs to speculate. Amateur investors can reasonably build diversified "buy and hold" portfolios of assets selected to set the portfolio risk at a level appropriate for the investor's age and other circumstances. But amateurs have no business speculating. A speculator bets against the market. Even speculators should not speculate in a particular asset except to exploit inside information or exceptional trading floor access.

I write this in a friendly spirit and appreciate your other interactions with me. But I think that your post, which some amateurs will understand as claiming that you are an expert in finance (which you are not), is irresponsible.

If you ARE an expert in finance, I won't mind being corrected. Such an expert has studied, and understands, both the theory and the evidence (for and against) the following topics in finance: The Sharpe-Lintner Capital Asset Pricing Model, the Black-Scholes Option Pricing Formula, the Efficient Markets Hypothesis. In addition, anyone claiming expertise in cryptocurrency type assets should be familiar with overlapping generations models such as Diamond (1965) and its progeny.

Practical experience is of only minor value in areas such as predicting capital asset markets and designing and operating a nuclear power plant. In both problem domains, a solid mastery of theory is literally vital.