Tools

Tools | Paul Faulkner — The Rogue Protocol

Forensic
Tools

The software that should have existed. Interactive forensic workstations built to the standard the research demands. Live market data. Auditable methodology. The stuff nobody is building.

11
Live forensic
tools deployed
1
Tool in
development
Live
Real-time BTC/USD/GBP/EUR
price feeds
Free
No paywall.
No subscription.
01 — The Problem
The tools that existed were wrong
Every calculator in the Bitcoin space was built to produce a predetermined outcome. Liquidation models ignoring margin mechanics. DCA tools ignoring the risk-free alternative. Cycle models applying last decade’s multiples to this decade’s market cap. Return calculators ignoring purchasing power.
02 — The Standard
Auditable inputs. No hidden assumptions.
Every figure derived from primary data. Every formula visible and adjustable. Live market feeds replace the static screenshots everyone else publishes. The methodology is the same applied across every piece of research in the catalogue.
03 — The Purpose
For the people who need the real number
Directors navigating FRS 102. Traders who have never seen a real liquidation model. Investors sold a DCA narrative without a risk-free benchmark. Anyone shown a Bitcoin return chart without a purchasing power adjustment. These tools exist because the alternative is an industry of comfortable fiction.

The Tool
Catalogue

! Regulatory Notice
Important — Before Using These Tools
Simulation Only
All outputs are illustrative simulations based on user-supplied inputs and publicly available market data. No output constitutes a prediction, forecast, or guarantee of any future price, return, or market event.
Not Financial Advice
Nothing produced by these tools constitutes financial advice, investment advice, or a personal recommendation within the meaning of FSMA 2000. These tools do not know your financial position, risk tolerance, or investment objectives.
No FCA Authorisation
Paul Faulkner and The Rogue Protocol are not authorised or regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. These tools are for forensic, analytical, and educational purposes only. They do not constitute regulated financial promotion under FSMA s.21.
Past Performance
Historical data used within these tools — including cycle peaks, MVRV ratios, liquidation statistics, and halving multiples — is not indicative of future results. Cryptocurrency markets carry substantial risk of loss, including total loss of capital.
Live — Tool III
Corporate Treasury // Legal Reality // Salomon v Salomon // Companies Act 2006
BTC per Share
You Own Zero
The chocolate vs. the wrapper —
your legal claim is exactly nothing

Under Salomon v Salomon [1897] and the Companies Act 2006, your legal entitlement to treasury Bitcoin is zero. Not reduced. Not diminished. Zero. Enter your investment. Receive the legal reality. UK presets: SWC, XCE, STAK. US comparison: Strategy (MSTR).

The board can sell every Bitcoin tomorrow. No shareholder vote. No consultation. The winding-up queue is fixed by statute: HMRC, secured creditors, bondholders — then you. You are last. Always.
Legal claim calculated and displayed: zero
Premium to NAV — the cost of the wrapper
Direct BTC you could have bought with the same capital
UK presets: SWC, XCE Capital, Stack BTC (STAK) + MSTR
Live — Tool IV
Derivatives // Isolated Margin // Liquidation vs Stop-Loss // Both Directions
Leverage & Liquidation
Calculator
Isolated margin model — where does
the position actually break?

The liquidation price is not your risk. It is the exchange’s floor. Your stop-loss is your risk. Most retail traders have never consciously distinguished these two numbers. This workstation calculates exact liquidation price, plots it against stop and target, and runs six leverage tiers simultaneously. Long and short — both modelled.

“Leverage caused the crash” is half the mechanism. The shorts that triggered those liquidations collected simultaneously on the same chart. This tool models both sides — the whole truth, not the half that fits the narrative.
Long and short — both modelled, both correct
Liquidation vs stop-loss clearly distinguished
Visual price zone chart: entry, stop, target, liquidation
Comparison table across 2×, 5×, 10×, 20×, 50×, 100× simultaneously
Live — Tool V
Cycle Analysis // Halving Forensics // Four Confirmed Peaks // Logarithmic Decay
Diminishing Returns
Cycle Forensics
Halving cycle modelling — the energy
that remains after each compression

2013→2017: 17.1×. 2017→2021: 3.5×. 2021→2025: 1.83×. The compression is in the primary record. This tool applies a configurable decay factor to the last observed multiple and projects forward — including the Hard Truth preset that most cycle models are built to avoid showing you.

A tool that only produces the number you want is not a tool. It is a mirror. The Hard Truth preset mirrors the exact drop-off between the last two cycles. All three presets are legitimate scenarios. Only one is comfortable.
Four confirmed historical peaks: 2013 · 2017 · 2021 · 2025
Hard Truth, Standard, Maxi Bullish presets
Live BTC/USD baseline from CoinGecko
Log scale chart — historical solid, projections dashed
Live — Tool VI
On-Chain Forensics // MVRV Ratio // Structural Ceiling // Realised Cap
MVRV Structural
Ceiling Calculator
On-chain forensics — where does
the cycle structurally break?

Every major cycle peak in Bitcoin’s history — 2013, 2017, 2021, 2025 — occurred inside the MVRV 3.7+ zone. When every coin is up 270% on average, aggregate selling pressure structurally overpowers incoming capital. This tool makes that threshold visible at current inputs.

Realised Cap requires manual input from Glassnode or CoinMetrics — not available via public API. The preset uses Glassnode’s $1.113T figure (Feb 2026). Update before use.
Realised Price and aggregate network profit %
Live MVRV ratio with risk heat-map gauge
Price at which 3.7 structural ceiling is reached
Manual override for custom Realised Cap inputs
Live — Tool VII
Macro Forensics // Monetary Theory // Six-Condition Stack // Krawisz 2014
Hyperbitcoinisation
Conditions Stack
Six structural requirements.
The model runs them. You decide.

Daniel Krawisz coined hyperbitcoinisation as the inverse of hyperinflation — not a currency collapsed, but one voluntarily abandoned. This tool models the six structural conditions required for that scenario. It does not argue for or against the thesis. It identifies where the conditions stack sits at live inputs — and is honest about the one condition that can never clear.

Condition 4 (Gresham’s Law Paradox) is hardcoded FAILS. It is a logical identity, not a modelled variable. Maximum score is 5/6. This is not a bug. It is the most honest thing this tool does.
Six-condition forensic framework — live data inputs
M2 money supply, BTC dominance, network metrics
Verdict with structural assessment
Krawisz / Nakamoto Institute methodology documented inline
Live — Tool VIII
Market Cap Forensics // XRP // Claver Predictions // Reality Check
XRP Reality
Check
Bitcoin maxis dream in multiples.
The XRP army dreams in thousands.

Jake Claver predicted $100 by end 2025. Missed. Then $1,500 by early 2026. Missed. Now $10,000 within 24 months. At max supply, that requires a $1 quadrillion market cap — more than double all human wealth ever created. The arithmetic is not opinion. It is arithmetic.

The Claver predictions are named and labelled in the table. MISSED / OUTSTANDING. The share button generates a pre-written line for the next time someone in your feed cites the $10,000 prediction without showing the market cap it requires.
Live XRP price from CoinGecko
$2 through $10,000 — required market cap at every target
Claver predictions labelled with status: MISSED / OUTSTANDING
Contextualised against GDP, global equities, total global wealth
Live — Tool IX
Strategy Analysis // DCA // Volatility Capture // Risk-Free Benchmark
DCA
Forensic Lab
Liquidity trap vs. static buy —
where does the risk-free rate sit?

Every DCA calculator treats mechanical monthly buying as the default optimal strategy. None benchmark against the risk-free rate. None ask what the money costs. This lab runs Static DCA against Volatility Capture simultaneously, benchmarked against the 5% annualised risk-free rate — so you can see what you are actually choosing between.

Two strategy models. One honest benchmark. Configurable dislocation trigger and liquidity multiplier. Three forward price scenarios with bar chart output. The risk-free rate is not a detail. It is the whole question.
Static DCA vs. Volatility Capture — both modelled simultaneously
Configurable dislocation trigger and liquidity multiplier
Three forward price scenarios with bar chart output
5% annualised risk-free benchmark across the full horizon
Live — Tool X
Liquidity Forensics // Market Structure // BTC vs Gold // Capital Flow Asymmetry
Market Cap
Illusion
The liquidity asymmetry they
never show you

BTC +18% vs gold +1.5% — the number they tweet. They never mention the denominator. Bitcoin’s outperformance is a liquidity effect, not a safe-haven signal. The same thin market that inflates the upside amplifies the downside with identical brutality. This tool makes the denominator visible.

Enter a pump scenario. Enter a crash scenario. The tool calculates exactly how much capital is required to move Bitcoin by that percentage — then shows what the same flow would do to the gold market. The comparison is not philosophical. It is arithmetic.

A safe haven is defined by depth. The capacity to absorb large, disorderly flows without violent price dislocation. Bitcoin’s liquidity profile disqualifies it from the category by definition. The percentage comparison is not analysis. It is arithmetic dressed as narrative.
Live BTC and gold market cap — CoinGecko feed
Configurable pump and crash sliders — both scenarios modelled
Capital required to move BTC vs. equivalent gold impact
Six output cards: capital absorbed, gold equivalent move, safe-haven test
Symmetry comparison table and forensic verdict
Coming Soon — Tool XII
UK GAAP // FRS 102 Section 18 // Corporate Treasury // Director Liability
BTC Treasury
Workstation
FRS 102 Section 18 impairment
simulation — UK GAAP

The UK Bitcoin treasury conversation has been conducted almost entirely in US accounting terms. FRS 102 Section 18 is not GAAP ASC 350. Under the Cost Model, Bitcoin is an intangible asset. It cannot be written up when the price recovers. Every impairment is permanent. Trigger a large enough write-down and your last dividend becomes retrospectively unlawful.

What it will do: Section 104 pool across multiple tranches, weighted average cost in real time, stress-test against live spot, auto-generated P&L journal entry, forensic alert on distributable-reserves breach.
Section 104 pool — multiple purchase tranches
Stress slider from −90% to +100% on live spot
Auto-generated DR/CR journal entry on impairment
Forensic alert on distributable-reserves breach
Coming Soon

Why These
Tools Exist

The Bitcoin space has two categories of tool: the promotional calculator that produces the number the issuer wants, and the absence of a calculator entirely. There is no third category. There was no market cap reality check. No return calculator adjusted for purchasing power. No leverage model distinguishing liquidation from stop-loss. No cycle model applying honest decay to honest multiples.

These tools were built because the research made their absence obvious. Every forensic report on this site required a calculation that no existing tool could perform honestly. The workstations are that infrastructure made public. Every tool is free. No email gate. No subscription paywall.

On BTC Reality
Every price target in Bitcoin history has been a number without a model. Nobody showed you what the market cap had to become. Nobody asked whether that number was structurally achievable.
On The Cherry Picker
The entire Bitcoin debate is conducted in arbitrarily selected time windows. The FRED CPI layer exists because a nominal gain in a debased currency is not the gain it appears to be. Nobody shows the real number.
On BTC Per Share
BTC per share implies ownership it does not confer. Salomon v Salomon 1897. The wrapper is not the chocolate. The tool strips the illusion and shows what the law actually says.
On Leverage
“Leverage caused the crash” is half the mechanism. This tool models both sides — the liquidated longs and the shorts that collected simultaneously. The whole truth, not the comfortable half.
On Diminishing Returns
2013→2017: 17.1×. 2017→2021: 3.5×. 2021→2025: 1.83×. The compression is documented. The question is not whether decay occurs. It is how fast.
On DCA Forensic Lab
Every DCA calculator omits the risk-free benchmark. The 5% annualised alternative is not a footnote. It is the entire question. If your strategy cannot beat the risk-free rate, you are not investing. You are speculating without accounting for it.
On XRP Reality
Claver’s $10,000 prediction requires a $1 quadrillion market cap. The tool does not argue. It calculates. The same market cap arithmetic that demolishes BTC maxis demolishes the XRP army. The mechanism is identical.
On Market Cap Illusion
BTC +18% vs gold +1.5% is posted every day as proof of Bitcoin’s superiority. Nobody shows the denominator. The same number of dollars that moved Bitcoin 18% would move gold a fraction of a percent. Liquidity is the variable nobody quotes. This tool quotes it.
On ETF Inflow Reality
Every ETF inflow headline suppresses the denominator and omits the counterparty. $1 billion of inflow requires $1 billion of BTC sold. The three scenarios behind that number are indistinguishable in aggregate flow data. The narrative selects the most favourable one. Every time.
Disclosure
The author holds cryptocurrency assets and actively trades spot and derivatives instruments in the markets these tools model. Disclosed in full on every publication. Educational only. Not financial advice.

The Number Has To Be
Defensible. Start Here.

The tools run the arithmetic. These two publications build the discipline that makes it permanent. One teaches you to construct a model that survives a risk committee. The other deploys seven AI agents — each built on named intelligence, military, or financial doctrine — to run the analysis the model demands.

Available Now
Show Me
The Model
242 pages · 13 serial dependency
conditions · No assumptions hidden
Show Me The Model — Paul Faulkner
£97
One payment · Immediate access
Get The Book →
Financial Modelling // Forensic Method // Institutional Standard

There was a period in institutional finance when a number had to be defensible. Not directionally correct. Not compelling. Defensible. You sat in front of a risk committee and walked through every assumption. If the model couldn’t survive that room, it didn’t leave the building.

That discipline is gone. This book brings it back. Thirteen serial dependency conditions. Every assumption visible. Every output auditable. The modelling standard that the LinkedIn thought leaders abandoned when the narrative became more profitable than the arithmetic.

Before you become an embarrassment to your own CV — the number has to be defensible. It always did. The FCA made it personal. Show Me The Model exists precisely for this moment.

13 serial dependency conditions — each one auditable
Institutional methodology from 25 years of live risk environments
The model that survives the room the marketing department left
242 pages · No filler · No narrative dressing
Active Subscription
Noetic
Frame OS
7 AI agents · 4 operational layers
Falsification-first epistemology
Noetic Frame OS
£99 / mo
Monthly subscription · Cancel anytime
Get The Framework →
AI Agent Suite // Intelligence Methodology // Structured Analytical Output

Seven AI agents. Four operational layers. One epistemological rule: falsification before confirmation. Noetic Frame OS is not a chatbot wrapper. It is a semantic virtual machine that sits between you and the raw LLM — imposing constraint-based reasoning before any output is generated.

Each agent is built on a named doctrine from intelligence, military, or financial practice. The SEES/ACH Engine applies CIA falsification methodology. The OODA Engine applies Boyd’s decision-velocity framework. The Reflexivity Detector models Soros feedback loops. The BLUF and SBAR engines apply US military and submarine communication standards. No narrative drift. No sycophancy. Structured analytical objects — not summaries.

Standard LLMs prioritise agreeableness. That is fatal for intelligence work. nOS inverts this. Every agent is hardwired to surface what you do not want to see. The output terminates in a directive, not a summary. Operators bring their own Anthropic API key — no data stored, no keys logged.

Agent 00 — Forensic Contradiction Analyser: cross-source contradiction mapping
Agent 01 — SEES/ACH Engine: CIA hypothesis falsification methodology
Agent 03 — Reflexivity Detector: Soros feedback loop modelling
Agent 05 — OODA Engine: Boyd decision-velocity and adversarial disruption
Agent 07 — RCA Engine: systemic root cause with CoPQ quantification
Agents 04 & 06 — BLUF and SBAR: military-standard executive communication
Three chained workflows: Investigative Brief · Market Intelligence · Incident Escalation

The Tools Are
The Starting Point

The research catalogue contains the forensic analysis that built these workstations. For bespoke modelling, institutional-grade briefings, or ongoing advisory engagement — the private practice is available.

New tools published alongside research · All tools free · No subscription required