@UpslopeCapital UpslopeCapital
Contrarian value PM championing cheap quality defensives against AI/momentum crowding extremes
Institutional long/short PM posting fundamental and factor-b
Grade = how their written analysis reads (A best). Trader score = how their last-20 timestamped calls performed vs SPY. · Analyst brief as of 2026-06-22.
Not yet in the scored-bets universe (fewer than 20 scoreable calls).
UpslopeCapital is focused almost entirely on ABXX / ABXX.TO, questioning whether apparent exchange activity reflects durable customer traction or incentive-driven trading. The distinctive read is that valuation is giving too much credit before open interest, liquidity, profitability, trading income, and data utility prove a real flywheel. One position disclosure appears, but the referenced holding ticker is not available as a tagged input ticker.
The week is dominated by a skeptical ABXX / ABXX.TO exchange-traction framework, centered on whether activity is incentive-driven rather than evidence of a durable network effect. There are no CALL_DIRECTIONAL signals, so there are no explicit adds, trims, initiations, or exits to classify. Concentration is high, with most ticker-tagged discussion tied to ABXX and related valuation or traction concerns.
| date (PT) | ticker | author | sent | what they said | since then | receipt |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-07-02 | ABXX.TO | @UpslopeCapital | -0.45 | Contrasts CME's commercial activity with Abaxx's headline volumes and limited evidence. | · | tweet ↗ |
| 2026-07-02 | CME | @UpslopeCapital | +0.20 | Contrasts CME's commercial activity with Abaxx's headline volumes and limited evidence. | — | tweet ↗ |
| 2026-07-02 | CBOE | @UpslopeCapital | +0.00 | Criticizes Abaxx PRs as disingenuous versus CBOE/CME launch communication. | — | tweet ↗ |
| 2026-07-02 | ABXX.TO | @UpslopeCapital | -0.50 | Criticizes Abaxx PRs as disingenuous versus CBOE/CME launch communication. | · | tweet ↗ |
| 2026-07-02 | CME | @UpslopeCapital | +0.10 | Criticizes Abaxx PRs as disingenuous versus CBOE/CME launch communication. | — | tweet ↗ |
| 2026-07-02 | · | @UpslopeCapital | · | Criticizes incentive-driven volume records being promoted as organic progress. | · | tweet ↗ |
| 2026-07-02 | CBOE | @UpslopeCapital | +0.00 | Mentions CBOE incentive fees without standalone stance. | — | tweet ↗ |
| 2026-07-02 | ABXX.TO | @UpslopeCapital | -0.20 | Notes OI is around 5x Abaxx's relative to volume and questions calendar spread dependence. | · | tweet ↗ |
| 2026-07-02 | · | @UpslopeCapital | · | Argues no OI and limited price movement weaken the trading activity case, but ticker is contextual. | · | tweet ↗ |
| 2026-07-02 | CME | @UpslopeCapital | +0.25 | Says CME has OI over 2x daily volumes, supporting real activity. | — | tweet ↗ |
| 2026-07-02 | · | @UpslopeCapital | · | Questions value of paying trading fees to day-trade calendar spreads with little price movement. | · | tweet ↗ |
| 2026-07-02 | ABXX.TO | @UpslopeCapital | -0.55 | Calls volume records dependent on incentivized trading meaningless. | · | tweet ↗ |
| 2026-07-02 | ABXX.TO | @UpslopeCapital | -0.55 | ABXX.TO record day had >98% volume in two contracts, ~1/3 in 5 mins, near zero price impact. | · | tweet ↗ |
| 2026-06-28 | · | @UpslopeCapital | · | Says some stocks could see multiples compress more, but context is unclear. | · | tweet ↗ |
| 2026-06-26 | · | @UpslopeCapital | · | Mentions OI bump as basic data and a nothing burger, no ticker context. | · | tweet ↗ |
Grade is our human read-worthiness rating; trader score is a rolling 20-bet hit-rate/alpha composite — different things, often disagreeing. “Since then” is direction-unaware in the table; the summary line above adjusts for which way they leaned.