He probably did as well as he could given his risk preferences and overall level of, uh, insanity, for the lack of a better word. By "insanity" I mean that which allows a person to do something like always doubling down on successful investments, risk of ruin be damned. It's a sure way to get absurdly rich if you don't end up losing everything you have along the way.

Yep, these articles always suffer from survivor bias. You never see the people who lost it all.

If you don't trade cryptos it looks really nice, but if you trade cryptos, then yes it did not do that great compared to the overall market. I have done over 600% in the past year, but I know plenty of people who are in the negative because they bought high and sold low. In the end, anyone who can make 295% return and have 9000+ investors following them is going to be just fine.

You're both in the business of making money. If buy and hold is more effective than trading, the trader is losing. Fairly relevant:

https://www.aei.org/publication/warren-buffett-wins-1m-bet-m...

Yes. The price of Bitcoin was ~$600 12 months ago, ~990$ Jan 1st and it's now ~4080$. Trading should be compared against simply holding, otherwise what's the point?

You want to compare it against holding through market fluctuations. Sure holding would have been better this year. Should bitcoin crash next year, it will be interesting to see if he is still in profit or not when the person holding is down. I assume this is why he is currently not up against holding, because he has spread his risk to accommodate any crashes.