You guessed it, it's that time again. What time you ask? Time to check the bear's tonsils that is : )
We here at LARP have been very publicly and presciently bearish since the mid 6x,xxx's. After a few weeks of indecision in the markets (more on this to come) it looks like we have reached selling exhaustion or a lack of sellers at these levels, as opposed to what could have been a high volume 'capitulation' event. Considering that the worst is likely over, we are wildly bullish here at $21,2xx (at the time of writing).
Due to elliot wave analysis, as well as traditional TA signs such as weekly RSI oversold, as well as Stoch RSI begging to be let up, it looks like we are ready for the bounce.
At a bare minimum we should retrace at least .382 of this entire move down, but we will likely go even higher than that, wiht a good chance of reaching the $40-$50k range. (green box). Agressively, sure, we could test or break the ATH, but if we do it's still not going to be "off to the races" and juan probably should not be counting on that. Are we on fire yet? I think so. In that breath, hope your ready for the rest of the summer, it gon' be hot folks. Especially so for da chikun ^-^
More to come.
gluck
not blah blah blah advice
We here at LARP have been very publicly and presciently bearish since the mid 6x,xxx's. After a few weeks of indecision in the markets (more on this to come) it looks like we have reached selling exhaustion or a lack of sellers at these levels, as opposed to what could have been a high volume 'capitulation' event. Considering that the worst is likely over, we are wildly bullish here at $21,2xx (at the time of writing).
Due to elliot wave analysis, as well as traditional TA signs such as weekly RSI oversold, as well as Stoch RSI begging to be let up, it looks like we are ready for the bounce.
At a bare minimum we should retrace at least .382 of this entire move down, but we will likely go even higher than that, wiht a good chance of reaching the $40-$50k range. (green box). Agressively, sure, we could test or break the ATH, but if we do it's still not going to be "off to the races" and juan probably should not be counting on that. Are we on fire yet? I think so. In that breath, hope your ready for the rest of the summer, it gon' be hot folks. Especially so for da chikun ^-^
More to come.
gluck
not blah blah blah advice
Comment:
(next next) Image: e8d92aeeeb1a6a32e1867d533d8bc5318b6d0eab52b1b5ec250939383a254f76
Comment:
aaaand weekly macd histogram now turning green...this could be gentlemen
Comment:
In short, my thoughts on the recent dip are that nothing has changed, the interim bottom (at least) is in and we are still on track for our wave B rally to the price range of $40-$50k.
From a general TA perspective I believe we are still experiencing the phenomenan of 'selling exhaustion' (we spoke about this in our Hot July video series). Basically, instead of the market bottoming via a high volume capitulation wash out type of event, where it would have wicked to $10k-$15k levels, buyers decide to step in at around $17,xxx and allow the bears to sell to them for as long as they please until eventually everyone begins to realize that the market is not going any lower and volume dries up as sellers give in and the market turns around.
Fast forward to yesterday, after taking a breather and seeing the price gradually than suddenly rally to over 25k, the bears begin to get nervous and acknowledge the fact that making new lows is slipping away, alas 'the last gasp' futile attempt to slam her with everything they have. Now, as the dust clears, it becomes apparent to all that even more energy was exerted to achieve even less as we begin to put in a higher low.
Psychology wise everything is perfect, sentiment is that we will not reach $30k for a long time (lol) and further, emotions are flaring over what was basically a sneeze in the grand scheme of things. Anyone who has experienced a real 'crash' in Bitcoin over the years understands this, but of course, there's nothing new under the sun in the markets and trees will be supplied to properly distract the impatient from missing the forest. Falling from $65k to below $20k over 8 months was the 'crash' ...not yesterday. Yesterday was simply volatility, which by the way, can work both ways : )
Moving on to elliot wave. While the bigger picture rules all, it's good to at least get an idea of what could be happening on lower time frames in terms of explanatory value (later to be used for predictive value). I have 3 general scenarios, 2 of which are pragmatically the same as it applies to what is to follow in the coming weeks/months. Lets begin with the third count, which to be clear is in my view by far the least likely, but for completeness I will include it here:
Essentially this would mean we just completed wave C of an irregular non-limiting triangle (c-e line shown here). This count does not really 'jive' with the big picture in terms of the time it will take to complete bigger wave B. Further, looking at things directly, the only thing it really has going for it would be the arguably 'unclean oh-A' line (suggests not A of a flat correction) coupled with the fact that B breaks above 1.38 of C then subsequently makes a new low (a characteristic which usually suggests a triangle).
BUT HERE'S THE THING. Both of these 'issues' (humans will recognize 1.38 is only slightly breached and the same for wave C retracing B) can easily be ignored when using candlestick measurement on wave A. Keep that in mind as I go forward with the two counts that more closely illustrate what's actually happening. Lastly, waves A and C are equal in time (both are around 6 days). While it's not impossible, this is not frequent in triangles, and, on the contrary is frequent in flat corrections. Which moves us to our next count.
Now we can discuss what is most likely happening. This first scenario (a group of counts w/ slight variations) implies that A, B, and C in the former scenario are actually an irregular flat as opposed to an irregular triangle which makes much more sense for a lot of reasons. Whether wave A/W (higher degree) is impulsive or corrective, all of the variations of this account, at least in terms of the implications of what is to come, are the same. If the move in question is corrective than that would mean it is either A of what I call a 'flat zag' or W of a non-standard correction. If the move is impulsive it is A of a zig zag both of which would have the same irregular flat serving as wave b. The last variation of this scenario would be to say that impulsive A actually ends later and A/W in the former scenario is really and extended wave 1 of A. Most importantly, in both this and our next scenario the implications of what is to come *are the same* ...we should rally hard
to make a new high within around 6 or 7 days. It wouldn't surprise me if it happens much sooner than that.
Above is the last scenario, a non-limiting, running, expanding triangle. Here, I am actually showing you the candlestick justification which I denote using a black hash mark. Keep in mind, this applies to both this and the last scenario, and is necessary as it eliminates the minor issues juan may have contemplated existing. In this scenario, the end of wave Y is inverse ineffectively changes.
Anyway, thats all folks. Look for a big rally in the coming days.
From a general TA perspective I believe we are still experiencing the phenomenan of 'selling exhaustion' (we spoke about this in our Hot July video series). Basically, instead of the market bottoming via a high volume capitulation wash out type of event, where it would have wicked to $10k-$15k levels, buyers decide to step in at around $17,xxx and allow the bears to sell to them for as long as they please until eventually everyone begins to realize that the market is not going any lower and volume dries up as sellers give in and the market turns around.
Fast forward to yesterday, after taking a breather and seeing the price gradually than suddenly rally to over 25k, the bears begin to get nervous and acknowledge the fact that making new lows is slipping away, alas 'the last gasp' futile attempt to slam her with everything they have. Now, as the dust clears, it becomes apparent to all that even more energy was exerted to achieve even less as we begin to put in a higher low.
Psychology wise everything is perfect, sentiment is that we will not reach $30k for a long time (lol) and further, emotions are flaring over what was basically a sneeze in the grand scheme of things. Anyone who has experienced a real 'crash' in Bitcoin over the years understands this, but of course, there's nothing new under the sun in the markets and trees will be supplied to properly distract the impatient from missing the forest. Falling from $65k to below $20k over 8 months was the 'crash' ...not yesterday. Yesterday was simply volatility, which by the way, can work both ways : )
Moving on to elliot wave. While the bigger picture rules all, it's good to at least get an idea of what could be happening on lower time frames in terms of explanatory value (later to be used for predictive value). I have 3 general scenarios, 2 of which are pragmatically the same as it applies to what is to follow in the coming weeks/months. Lets begin with the third count, which to be clear is in my view by far the least likely, but for completeness I will include it here:
BUT HERE'S THE THING. Both of these 'issues' (humans will recognize 1.38 is only slightly breached and the same for wave C retracing B) can easily be ignored when using candlestick measurement on wave A. Keep that in mind as I go forward with the two counts that more closely illustrate what's actually happening. Lastly, waves A and C are equal in time (both are around 6 days). While it's not impossible, this is not frequent in triangles, and, on the contrary is frequent in flat corrections. Which moves us to our next count.
to make a new high within around 6 or 7 days. It wouldn't surprise me if it happens much sooner than that.
Anyway, thats all folks. Look for a big rally in the coming days.
Comment:
"coupled with the fact that B breaks above 1.38 of C then subsequently"
-B breaks above 1.38 of *A
-B breaks above 1.38 of *A
Comment:
Update/addendum to my last post:
It is totally par for the course to have many different possible counts to consider (with small implicational differences) at the start of a new trend. The value of exploring these various possibilities helps highlight the difference between predictive and explanatory analysis. Highly skilled explanatory analysis will later help inform our predictive analysis, and in this case, how biggest wave B will 'end'. In order to determine such, first we must first figure out how it 'begins', which naturally involves the contemplation numerous counts that will, over time, be further and further widdled down until just juan, or a select few remain.
Small tangent: To further clarify my last update--don't let 'where' black A is shown in the last chart throw you off, purple ! denotes the inverse ineffective end of Y (of biggest A), where as purple Y denotes the inverse effective end. With Inverse Efficacy (broader term) we are dealing with some observed (or even anticipated) price action which changes the consideration of the end of a wave, looking backwards in time. To make sure you are sufficiently confused, yet an important point nonetheless, this a distinct concept from the consideration of the Direct vs Indirect end of a wave. For instance, in the above example, I'll explicitly point out that it is the Direct end of wave A which is inverse effectively changed (Y, which represents biggest A, is unchanged).
Moving along to this post which will cover three new (not yet discussed) counts all of which imply that biggest A inverse effectively changes. As you can see, the first two counts maintain the 'integrity' of the irregular flat a-b-c seen in former counts (strictly speaking from the vantage point of their comparitive consideration as juan would be a fool to truly apply the concept of intergrity (in the elliot sense) with no market based proof of work built upon it). Even the book concedes this, although we perhaps take the concept a bit further.
'abnormal running nl expanding e failure'
Here we have the (newly named) 'e failure' running expanding non-limiing triangle. The (relatively) long time it takes for wave E to form justifies the larger pattern's consideration. Yet, constructionally, there is a loose presence of fib relationships between alternating waves, which is atypical of et's. But heck, as the juan know, something wrong w/ every count eh?
'wonky' elongated flat (small) x (yes small in comparison to larger correction, in other words < .618 ret.)
Here, bigger W (shown by it's absence) effectively ends later...but, here, wave A inverse effectively effectively ends earlier (or inverse later LOL *it moves backwards* or *from right to left*), or it inverse *in*effectively ends more to the leftzzz (are we having fun yet?). But, nevermind that. B-b-but ThE bOoK sAyS
'all flats except elongated' (paraphrase) ...sure, and thereinlies the wonkiness of the matter. While it is true the book is fairly explicit in this regard, and further implicit in that EF's are *almost* exclusively found in triangles, in the wild--positional anomalies such is this due occur and can be logically 'justified' through various means. Here I would invoke the 'similarity of wave types' principle of the beaty method--the lines between various wave types get blurred when viewed from different perspectives. There is always both stricter and more lenient ways to differentiate the classification of wave types. Without getting too caught in the weeds, the fact that wave C just barely breaches a 1.618 retracement of B is not far off from the 1.382 retracement an irregular flat classification could exhibit. Thus juan could say, due to the similarity in construction, and *where it occurs, the flat is indirectly classified as an irregular. But I digress, we'll let the academics pop their tops on that juan and move on to more important thangz. "Nonsense! It makes-a-me-a uncomfortable and goes against my programming so it can't be true" ^-^
'unchannelable' irregular failure non-limiting flat Y
Here we have an irregular failure concluding biggest A (non-standard correction) in the position of wave Y, and similar conceptual changes in terms of the inverse efficacy. This would represent extreme counter-trend strength to come and perhaps, the most powerful of all aforementioned counts within both of these updates. You might notice the candlestick measurement of past counts is left out here...while you are free to consider it as valid for both the prior and this count, it is not really needed (especially for this count) as the 'cleanliness' of what would be an oh-a line is allowed due to the 'lower degree' exception, and is in truth not even possible to be determined. Think deeply about that juan. Further, all of the above aside, in the rare occurrences where the cleanliness rule is broken, an irregular flat will usually have something to do with it, afterall, it earned this name for a reason : ) In a similar breath, irregular flats usually contribute to a new category of wave types I call the 'unchannelables' ...whether it be the flat itself, or larger degree pattern of which it is a part of, that is unchannelable.
SO WHICH IS THE CORRECT COUNT!? Only time will tell, and tell more it will, as more time progresses : ) Each and every count are important to consider this early on, the juan which arises to be most attractive over time will provide us with the best predictive value needed to conclude that biggest wave B has 'ended.' For the most part, they each represent slightly different manifestation paths. The commonality seems to be that the vast majority seem to imply we will be making a new high any day now, which jives quite well with what the big picture suggests, and we have been predicting since long before wave B even begun. More conservatively, the first two in this post leave open the possibility for it to take as long as the entire irregular flat took to form, but it really shouldn't take that long considering many other Indirect factors.
With that, we leave you. Starting to get nervous bears?
It is totally par for the course to have many different possible counts to consider (with small implicational differences) at the start of a new trend. The value of exploring these various possibilities helps highlight the difference between predictive and explanatory analysis. Highly skilled explanatory analysis will later help inform our predictive analysis, and in this case, how biggest wave B will 'end'. In order to determine such, first we must first figure out how it 'begins', which naturally involves the contemplation numerous counts that will, over time, be further and further widdled down until just juan, or a select few remain.
Small tangent: To further clarify my last update--don't let 'where' black A is shown in the last chart throw you off, purple ! denotes the inverse ineffective end of Y (of biggest A), where as purple Y denotes the inverse effective end. With Inverse Efficacy (broader term) we are dealing with some observed (or even anticipated) price action which changes the consideration of the end of a wave, looking backwards in time. To make sure you are sufficiently confused, yet an important point nonetheless, this a distinct concept from the consideration of the Direct vs Indirect end of a wave. For instance, in the above example, I'll explicitly point out that it is the Direct end of wave A which is inverse effectively changed (Y, which represents biggest A, is unchanged).
Moving along to this post which will cover three new (not yet discussed) counts all of which imply that biggest A inverse effectively changes. As you can see, the first two counts maintain the 'integrity' of the irregular flat a-b-c seen in former counts (strictly speaking from the vantage point of their comparitive consideration as juan would be a fool to truly apply the concept of intergrity (in the elliot sense) with no market based proof of work built upon it). Even the book concedes this, although we perhaps take the concept a bit further.
'abnormal running nl expanding e failure'
'wonky' elongated flat (small) x (yes small in comparison to larger correction, in other words < .618 ret.)
'all flats except elongated' (paraphrase) ...sure, and thereinlies the wonkiness of the matter. While it is true the book is fairly explicit in this regard, and further implicit in that EF's are *almost* exclusively found in triangles, in the wild--positional anomalies such is this due occur and can be logically 'justified' through various means. Here I would invoke the 'similarity of wave types' principle of the beaty method--the lines between various wave types get blurred when viewed from different perspectives. There is always both stricter and more lenient ways to differentiate the classification of wave types. Without getting too caught in the weeds, the fact that wave C just barely breaches a 1.618 retracement of B is not far off from the 1.382 retracement an irregular flat classification could exhibit. Thus juan could say, due to the similarity in construction, and *where it occurs, the flat is indirectly classified as an irregular. But I digress, we'll let the academics pop their tops on that juan and move on to more important thangz. "Nonsense! It makes-a-me-a uncomfortable and goes against my programming so it can't be true" ^-^
'unchannelable' irregular failure non-limiting flat Y
SO WHICH IS THE CORRECT COUNT!? Only time will tell, and tell more it will, as more time progresses : ) Each and every count are important to consider this early on, the juan which arises to be most attractive over time will provide us with the best predictive value needed to conclude that biggest wave B has 'ended.' For the most part, they each represent slightly different manifestation paths. The commonality seems to be that the vast majority seem to imply we will be making a new high any day now, which jives quite well with what the big picture suggests, and we have been predicting since long before wave B even begun. More conservatively, the first two in this post leave open the possibility for it to take as long as the entire irregular flat took to form, but it really shouldn't take that long considering many other Indirect factors.
With that, we leave you. Starting to get nervous bears?
Comment:
Anxiety about the wider markets and a general apathy towards the most innovative asset to ever exist, as compared to the euphoria of 8 months ago looking for $250k (currently sentiment is that a measly $30k is not happening in the near future). Soon we all get a reminder that honey badger doesn't care about the fed minutes...Bitcion is the dog, not the tail!
Lots of false starts. The smart money quietly accumulating and letting the impatient sell to them as much as they please amidst the growing competitive game theoretical awareness that others are doing the same. The keen eye might catch their footprints on the tape flashing from time to time, until juan soon decides to say 'yes i'll take all that there is to offer at these prices and more' and the crowd follows.
Went a bit lower, emotions flaring yet again over volatility and stop hunting before the big rise (the hunters unknowingly picking up pennies in front of a steamroller). Panties in a bunch over lots of energy wasted and positioning for a new low which has yet to happen, what are their targets? At what price do they all buy back in at? How much time will they have? Hmmm. Soon the hunters become the huntees me thinks.
Yep, selling under $20k feels a whole lot like the foolish who sold above $60k. Moving on. As time progresses so does our analysis, thus a third post. Let's talk walves...keep in mind...this is all explanatory value (not predictive). The published chart shows what we are/have been expecting, none of that has changed. The benefit of this analysis is to try and grasp what might be happening (count wise) now, in order to help us more effectively predict what happens later i.e. how, where, and when this biggest wave B rally will end.
As expected, with time, the many counts will decrease to a select few or juan. In that vein, due to the easily greater than .618 rertracement of the move to 25k, all (impulsive A) zig zag counts are eliminated. The abnormal expanding e failure as well.
The non-limiting irregular failure Y (last part of our second post) is not eliminated, but better updated to reflect new information, which actually for a bunch of reasons makes it a better (more likely?) count. Below is the updated version:
Now, instead of what we call an 'unchannelable' ...the irregular failure becomes a 'perfectly channelable' irregular failure.
With that, we leave you. Night night bears.
Lots of false starts. The smart money quietly accumulating and letting the impatient sell to them as much as they please amidst the growing competitive game theoretical awareness that others are doing the same. The keen eye might catch their footprints on the tape flashing from time to time, until juan soon decides to say 'yes i'll take all that there is to offer at these prices and more' and the crowd follows.
Went a bit lower, emotions flaring yet again over volatility and stop hunting before the big rise (the hunters unknowingly picking up pennies in front of a steamroller). Panties in a bunch over lots of energy wasted and positioning for a new low which has yet to happen, what are their targets? At what price do they all buy back in at? How much time will they have? Hmmm. Soon the hunters become the huntees me thinks.
Yep, selling under $20k feels a whole lot like the foolish who sold above $60k. Moving on. As time progresses so does our analysis, thus a third post. Let's talk walves...keep in mind...this is all explanatory value (not predictive). The published chart shows what we are/have been expecting, none of that has changed. The benefit of this analysis is to try and grasp what might be happening (count wise) now, in order to help us more effectively predict what happens later i.e. how, where, and when this biggest wave B rally will end.
As expected, with time, the many counts will decrease to a select few or juan. In that vein, due to the easily greater than .618 rertracement of the move to 25k, all (impulsive A) zig zag counts are eliminated. The abnormal expanding e failure as well.
The non-limiting irregular failure Y (last part of our second post) is not eliminated, but better updated to reflect new information, which actually for a bunch of reasons makes it a better (more likely?) count. Below is the updated version:
With that, we leave you. Night night bears.
Comment:
"Yep, selling under $20k feels a whole lot like the foolish who sold above $60k. "
*bought
*bought
Comment:
Addendum to this third post:
The 'flat zag' count is not so much eliminated, but rather, evolved. And starts to make a lot more sense. Due to the > .618 retracement of the move up to 25k, it is not so much a flat-zag, but rather, waves A and B of typical elongated flat with lots of changes in terms of efficacy (not shown on this or the last chart, will keep it simple for now).
The main thing to grasp is that biggest wave A (black) would no longer be a non standard correction. This actually brings EVERYTHING together rather nicely. In this scenario, the Indirect and Direct end of A converge, and balance out the timing of it all. Here W (formerly shown by it's absence), X, and Y, are all removed which beautifully brings together the 'start' of biggest wave B (black).
Capital letters (purple) waves A and B become two segments of ~equal Time of a larger elongated flat of which a third powerful wave C should follow (not sure if I have mentioned this concept yet, have I?)
As shown in the published chart, clearly there is some type of lower degree flat happening in the viscinity which is channeling as to scream 'part of a larger correction' ...the tricky part is determining which juan. As shown here, it represents smaller wave b (not labeled) of larger wave b of elongated flat A of larger elongated flat of which powerful C is to follow. Well, it also represents the smaller labeled b depending on how you draw it. The key here is that you have two indications of 'part of a larger degree' coupled with the manifestation of such!
So, overall we have already (I think) widdled things down to 3 major counts. The two I just added, plus the original first count of the first post which is in it's current form, eliminated, at least a wave w (possible the supposed triangle would be considered as a wonky 'non-limiting' b of a larger (different) flat-zag). But again, this does not really jive with our expected timing.
So, 3 major counts (possible i'm forgetting a variation, am not seeing juan, or another will arise) 2 of which are much more likely, and have much more bullish implications.
Time (and coming price action) will tell which of the more bullish two has better explanatory value.
Salutations.
The 'flat zag' count is not so much eliminated, but rather, evolved. And starts to make a lot more sense. Due to the > .618 retracement of the move up to 25k, it is not so much a flat-zag, but rather, waves A and B of typical elongated flat with lots of changes in terms of efficacy (not shown on this or the last chart, will keep it simple for now).
The main thing to grasp is that biggest wave A (black) would no longer be a non standard correction. This actually brings EVERYTHING together rather nicely. In this scenario, the Indirect and Direct end of A converge, and balance out the timing of it all. Here W (formerly shown by it's absence), X, and Y, are all removed which beautifully brings together the 'start' of biggest wave B (black).
As shown in the published chart, clearly there is some type of lower degree flat happening in the viscinity which is channeling as to scream 'part of a larger correction' ...the tricky part is determining which juan. As shown here, it represents smaller wave b (not labeled) of larger wave b of elongated flat A of larger elongated flat of which powerful C is to follow. Well, it also represents the smaller labeled b depending on how you draw it. The key here is that you have two indications of 'part of a larger degree' coupled with the manifestation of such!
So, overall we have already (I think) widdled things down to 3 major counts. The two I just added, plus the original first count of the first post which is in it's current form, eliminated, at least a wave w (possible the supposed triangle would be considered as a wonky 'non-limiting' b of a larger (different) flat-zag). But again, this does not really jive with our expected timing.
So, 3 major counts (possible i'm forgetting a variation, am not seeing juan, or another will arise) 2 of which are much more likely, and have much more bullish implications.
Time (and coming price action) will tell which of the more bullish two has better explanatory value.
Salutations.
Comment:
Minor correction to our Aug 28th update/post:
(Like the vast majority of typos, mis-speakings etc that have and will surely continue to occur amidst communicating highly complex ideas and distilling them all down to small digestable posts...juan could have (given even a basic understanding of the subject matter) figured out correction.)
"As expected, with time, the many counts will decrease to a select few or juan. In that vein, due to the easily greater than .618 rertracement of the move to 25k, all (impulsive A) zig zag counts are eliminated. **The abnormal expanding e failure as well."**
Correction: I meant the *other expanding triangle count is eliminated (the third chart in our first update, "non-limiting, running, expanding triangle." as I called it).
(Like the vast majority of typos, mis-speakings etc that have and will surely continue to occur amidst communicating highly complex ideas and distilling them all down to small digestable posts...juan could have (given even a basic understanding of the subject matter) figured out correction.)
"As expected, with time, the many counts will decrease to a select few or juan. In that vein, due to the easily greater than .618 rertracement of the move to 25k, all (impulsive A) zig zag counts are eliminated. **The abnormal expanding e failure as well."**
Correction: I meant the *other expanding triangle count is eliminated (the third chart in our first update, "non-limiting, running, expanding triangle." as I called it).
Comment:
Update: While others cower in fear over a whole lot of nothing, we continue to work and evolve our thinking in terms of explanatory analysis (to later be used for predictive analysis.
The two most likely counts get evolved to account for new price action. A new count arises. Again, the abnormal expanding e failure technically still in play. While there's lots of effectivity at play, we'll continue to keep things simple for the audience.
-The irregular failure non-limiting Y of biggest A still very much in play.
-The same goes for our elongated flat, two adjacent segments of equal time count. Here the count is adjusted at lower degrees to better represent the recent price action.
-Here is what I call the 'touch three' extended third impulse. This would be another scenario in which biggest wave A loses it's 'non-standard' classification. When an extended wave 3 impulse channels like this, or the most frequent 'classic' way, typically the 5th wave will fail (which would make sense here). Here you have a bit of 'as above so below' between waves 1 and 3 (small difference being a running 2 below) which foreshadows the presumed coming 5th failure.
The two most likely counts get evolved to account for new price action. A new count arises. Again, the abnormal expanding e failure technically still in play. While there's lots of effectivity at play, we'll continue to keep things simple for the audience.
Comment:
Okay, continuing on with our explanatory analysis. Am I following the geo-political clown show, the fed policy/minutes/figure heads, economic prints, or the equities markets? Nope, as always, I could not care less about them. They are 100% irrelevant if you want to be the greatest like mwa. Fascinating to watch the bearish confidence (bordering on euphoria) on months of sideways price action.
I hope you are ready, else you might not last long. On the 1d chart, the price has officially broken the (potentially former) 2-4 line, and (presumably briefly) broken back below it. The intermediate student will (smartly) not be so quick to give up on this overall interpretation of biggest A (as a standard correction), yet (perhaps not so smartly) will assume that a terminal 5th is developing. The problem with such is how unlikely it is that the market will make new lows-- which the construction of a terminal would imply is coming (albeit briefly before fully retracing the move down within 25-50% of the time it took to form).
Advanced students will note the following: former purple wave 5 is composed of an extended 1st impulse who's construction, and early post construction (think POW) in that the price returns to the territory of wave 2, is all too perfect to, *at least from a DIRECT perspective on the 1d chart*, ever again be interpreted any differently. Thus, *from a DIRECT perspective* it's 'integrity' (elliot sense) will be forever upheld, and *likely, *on a 1d chart, indirectly be upheld as well. What am I getting at? Well, given there is a wave *of any degree* that begins and ends where former purple waves 4 and 5 do, it is an extended wave 1 impulse. In other words, as opposed to assuming a terminal is forming, what's actually habbening is the wonky-beaty 'larger wave 4 than you thought rule is coming into play.
This actually would greatly improve the 'Complexity' of overall impulsive C of biggest A (standard). Let me be clear and reiterate hours and hours of lecture i've given around the nuance of complexity. In the book, Complexity is a term (like most other terms) which is constantly redefined from different perspectives and used differently depending on specific contexts. My gripe is/was particularly related to the the concept as it applies to complexity LEVELS. Further, the choice by ellioticians to *strictly apply such in their analysis failing to realize both how narrow such a view is, and how, absent any ammendment it will largely ignore the reality that there's always something wrong with any potential count. In other words, strictly applied the vast majority of counts will fail to adhere to it thus rendering the concept useless, or more loosely applied (think missing vs incidental waves, CS measurement, effectivity, etc) will allow for the opposite. Complexity levels presume that you know for sure the structure of a wave, where it begins and ends, and what the larger count is, all of which you usually do not know! Yet, conversely, the wider concept of complexity is certainly an important concept to understand i.e. how price, time, and intricacy relate to your consideration of elliot wave counts. I will even say (as I have before) that complexity *levels concept is good to understand, yet strict adherence to applying the 1 level removed between adjacent waves is largely futile. Flagrant violations of the above are perhaps valuable yet usually can become apparent, *sooner, using other aspects of the EWP.
Moving on, without mentioning the specific complexity LEVEL of any wave, I can point out that purple wave 1 (as currently shown and considered) is extremely intricate, thus by effectively changing purple wave 4 the relative complexity of waves 1 and *extended wave 3 (it's true, new, effective end not shown or even considered) is greatly improved. Lastly, this now allows for purple wave 5 to 'truly' fail (in a price sense) as is foretold by the smaller 5th failure within purple wave 1!
Finally, considering the lastest price action--a negative *weekly* tick, even if just slightly for a 'bend', would create the potential for biggest wave A on the *WEEKLY* chart to conclude with a small NL triangle with impulsive X1 (second biggest 4) on the *daily* chart actually represented as a corrective wave on the weekly i.e. a 'transgender' wave.
I hope you are ready, else you might not last long. On the 1d chart, the price has officially broken the (potentially former) 2-4 line, and (presumably briefly) broken back below it. The intermediate student will (smartly) not be so quick to give up on this overall interpretation of biggest A (as a standard correction), yet (perhaps not so smartly) will assume that a terminal 5th is developing. The problem with such is how unlikely it is that the market will make new lows-- which the construction of a terminal would imply is coming (albeit briefly before fully retracing the move down within 25-50% of the time it took to form).
Advanced students will note the following: former purple wave 5 is composed of an extended 1st impulse who's construction, and early post construction (think POW) in that the price returns to the territory of wave 2, is all too perfect to, *at least from a DIRECT perspective on the 1d chart*, ever again be interpreted any differently. Thus, *from a DIRECT perspective* it's 'integrity' (elliot sense) will be forever upheld, and *likely, *on a 1d chart, indirectly be upheld as well. What am I getting at? Well, given there is a wave *of any degree* that begins and ends where former purple waves 4 and 5 do, it is an extended wave 1 impulse. In other words, as opposed to assuming a terminal is forming, what's actually habbening is the wonky-beaty 'larger wave 4 than you thought rule is coming into play.
This actually would greatly improve the 'Complexity' of overall impulsive C of biggest A (standard). Let me be clear and reiterate hours and hours of lecture i've given around the nuance of complexity. In the book, Complexity is a term (like most other terms) which is constantly redefined from different perspectives and used differently depending on specific contexts. My gripe is/was particularly related to the the concept as it applies to complexity LEVELS. Further, the choice by ellioticians to *strictly apply such in their analysis failing to realize both how narrow such a view is, and how, absent any ammendment it will largely ignore the reality that there's always something wrong with any potential count. In other words, strictly applied the vast majority of counts will fail to adhere to it thus rendering the concept useless, or more loosely applied (think missing vs incidental waves, CS measurement, effectivity, etc) will allow for the opposite. Complexity levels presume that you know for sure the structure of a wave, where it begins and ends, and what the larger count is, all of which you usually do not know! Yet, conversely, the wider concept of complexity is certainly an important concept to understand i.e. how price, time, and intricacy relate to your consideration of elliot wave counts. I will even say (as I have before) that complexity *levels concept is good to understand, yet strict adherence to applying the 1 level removed between adjacent waves is largely futile. Flagrant violations of the above are perhaps valuable yet usually can become apparent, *sooner, using other aspects of the EWP.
Moving on, without mentioning the specific complexity LEVEL of any wave, I can point out that purple wave 1 (as currently shown and considered) is extremely intricate, thus by effectively changing purple wave 4 the relative complexity of waves 1 and *extended wave 3 (it's true, new, effective end not shown or even considered) is greatly improved. Lastly, this now allows for purple wave 5 to 'truly' fail (in a price sense) as is foretold by the smaller 5th failure within purple wave 1!
Finally, considering the lastest price action--a negative *weekly* tick, even if just slightly for a 'bend', would create the potential for biggest wave A on the *WEEKLY* chart to conclude with a small NL triangle with impulsive X1 (second biggest 4) on the *daily* chart actually represented as a corrective wave on the weekly i.e. a 'transgender' wave.
Comment:
(second biggest *5)
lol
lol
Comment:
For the Complexity Level junkies
...a new term is introduced 'simple polywave' Essentially you might think of this as an inverse complex monowave. The main difference here is that it's attribution is not so much characterized by 'hints' what is effectively happening on a different time frame , but rather, indirectly determined by taking into account the complexity of surrounding waves/the bigger picture.
While it's absence (in this case) would not, by the book, technically, invalidate the complexity of the count--as wave 2 need not *necessarily be more complex than wave 1 (compare with simpler relativity of waves i.e. 'if wave 1 subdivides wave 2 must subdivide') it's presence is more appropriate here.
Let me explain further: in an extended wave 3 impulse one of the two corrections (2 and 4) will usually be 'more' complex as to exhibit proper alternation. Since wave 2 is clearly much more complex than wave 2 in price, time, and intricacy it's categorization of a simple poly is more accurate!
While it's absence (in this case) would not, by the book, technically, invalidate the complexity of the count--as wave 2 need not *necessarily be more complex than wave 1 (compare with simpler relativity of waves i.e. 'if wave 1 subdivides wave 2 must subdivide') it's presence is more appropriate here.
Let me explain further: in an extended wave 3 impulse one of the two corrections (2 and 4) will usually be 'more' complex as to exhibit proper alternation. Since wave 2 is clearly much more complex than wave 2 in price, time, and intricacy it's categorization of a simple poly is more accurate!
Comment:
Due to the labels of simple vs complex as used to describe wave types within the book from a complexity standpoint, perhaps we will call it something different. Hmmm. Perhaps an 'indirectly simple poly' we shall see.
Comment:
Purple 3 is a multiwave (a wave which not only subdivides, but it's own extended wave also subdivides) which channels as either a classic X3 or 'Touch three' X3 depending upon if candlestick measurement is used. Keep in mind, put differently, it is biggest wave C that channels as such, which is a Macrowave.
The extended wave *of purple 3 is also wave 3, which (similar to lower degrees) exhibits efficacy in terms of where it ends from the perspective of complexity vs the perspective of channeling (above). This extended wave is one of the three different ways the book shows an extended third can channel, I call it the 'Microscopic 1' X3 (shown in bold black), here the 2-4 line parallels *only 3--as 1 is 'microscopic'.
Purple wave 3 not only subdivides into an M1X3, but further, M1X3's own extended wave subdivides, thus why it is classified as a multiwave (level 2). In this case an extended 5th wave in the position of wave 3. There is also a 'complex monowave' (classic x3 shown as feint dashed channel) serving as the position of wave 5 within the extended 5th which exhbits both efficacy and inverse efficacy. Bold black 4 is properly 'more' complex than bold black 2, as bold black 5 is 'near' equal in complexity to bold black 3. At a meta-level bold black 3 is 'more' complex due to the complex mono within, which is appropriately would make it the 'near-most' complex wave even considering the subdivisionality vs extensionality *independently.
The extended wave *of purple 3 is also wave 3, which (similar to lower degrees) exhibits efficacy in terms of where it ends from the perspective of complexity vs the perspective of channeling (above). This extended wave is one of the three different ways the book shows an extended third can channel, I call it the 'Microscopic 1' X3 (shown in bold black), here the 2-4 line parallels *only 3--as 1 is 'microscopic'.
Purple wave 3 not only subdivides into an M1X3, but further, M1X3's own extended wave subdivides, thus why it is classified as a multiwave (level 2). In this case an extended 5th wave in the position of wave 3. There is also a 'complex monowave' (classic x3 shown as feint dashed channel) serving as the position of wave 5 within the extended 5th which exhbits both efficacy and inverse efficacy. Bold black 4 is properly 'more' complex than bold black 2, as bold black 5 is 'near' equal in complexity to bold black 3. At a meta-level bold black 3 is 'more' complex due to the complex mono within, which is appropriately would make it the 'near-most' complex wave even considering the subdivisionality vs extensionality *independently.
Comment:
When viewed strictly from a perspective of nesting (complexity aside), waves 1 and 2 (shown by their absence) of X5-bold black 3 would be used to accurately illustrate the phenomenan--as here wave 1 properly approaches the 'end' of bigger wave 1, and wave 2 more properly illustrates current (and coming) increasing strength of the market in that it retraces less price wise (negative ret. (running correction)), takes less time, and is less complex than bigger wave 2!
Comment:
It seems with today's low bearish euphoria is now official. If everyone is bearish who is left to sell? Continuing on with our explanatory analysis:
We should break the purple wave 4 high this week, and it would not surprise me if we still manage to, on the *monthly line chart, put in our wave B high this month (september (3))...this would essentially represent a massive 'short squeeze' type of scenario as in order for B to be 3 months it would have to complete above ~$36k.
Yes you read that correctly. Keep in mind, the price still could (and presumably would) go even higher (potentially significantly) on lower time frame charts such as the daily and/or weekly *within the month of October, yet in this scenario, the month of October would still *close red. If I am correct, the complexity perspective of the daily chart (if relevant) would imply that we will have to have at least a level 3 standard correction (very likely a zig zag) wave B to match the level 4 macrowave (a-b-c flat) for wave A. In such a short time the most likely manner in which this would manifest would be a level 2 impulsive C of a zig zag as A would have to be extremely simple to cover so much ground in so little time (getting above 36k by Oct.1) and further, in general, the more complex impulsive wave in a zig zag should be wave C.
Even if the above scenario does not happen, we should still break above the purple wave 4 high within this week, but we would get a more time consuming wave B which would be 4 or more (but likely 4) months long.
We should break the purple wave 4 high this week, and it would not surprise me if we still manage to, on the *monthly line chart, put in our wave B high this month (september (3))...this would essentially represent a massive 'short squeeze' type of scenario as in order for B to be 3 months it would have to complete above ~$36k.
Yes you read that correctly. Keep in mind, the price still could (and presumably would) go even higher (potentially significantly) on lower time frame charts such as the daily and/or weekly *within the month of October, yet in this scenario, the month of October would still *close red. If I am correct, the complexity perspective of the daily chart (if relevant) would imply that we will have to have at least a level 3 standard correction (very likely a zig zag) wave B to match the level 4 macrowave (a-b-c flat) for wave A. In such a short time the most likely manner in which this would manifest would be a level 2 impulsive C of a zig zag as A would have to be extremely simple to cover so much ground in so little time (getting above 36k by Oct.1) and further, in general, the more complex impulsive wave in a zig zag should be wave C.
Even if the above scenario does not happen, we should still break above the purple wave 4 high within this week, but we would get a more time consuming wave B which would be 4 or more (but likely 4) months long.
Comment:
In the (3) scenario wave A would be either a monowave or what I all a 'complex monowave' (a wave which has subdivisions that give hints of what's happening 'below' but is still classified as monowave)...this would create the concept of 'triplexity' of the zig zag.
A-0
B-1
C-2
A-0
B-1
C-2
Comment:
Nothing new under the sun in markets. No one wanted Bitcoin in March of 2020...everyone wanted it last year... 'I didn't get enough! If I could just buy some bitcoin below $20k I would friggin pack the trunk!' ...now here we are and no one wants it...again...just like everyone will want it... again...above $50k (I love this sh**) This may very well be yet another opportunity of a lifetime, and, as always, most will pass up on it as they always do, the smart money happy to gobble it all up while they can.
We now have similarity in price between purple waves 1 and 5 (a ~.382 relationship), which is characteristic between the two unextended waves of an extended wave 3 impulse. Couple that with the forming of bullish divergence on the 1d RSI and I would say there's a damn good chance purple wave 5, larger C, and biggest A are complete!
Zooming out to larger time frames, as previously mentioned, a new count emerges which ends with a Non-Limiiting Triangle. This is quite a beautiful triple combination which is now the primary count on the 3d (shown using an index as opposed to Bitstamp here) and weekly chart.
We now have 3 primary counts to track, each on a different time frame, namely the 1d, 3d/1w, and 1M. They are all great counts which 'jive' nicely and can certainly coexist (at least for now) as they all have largely the same implications as to what comes next (a big move up).
And so while the easily swayed, impatient and convictionless react, we simply sharpen our knives of understanding, and prepare for the inevitable. Again, we will remind all that these numerous charts help inform 'explanatory analysis' which is the rigorous process that eventually helps inform 'predictive analysis' ...the lines of which can, at times, be blurred yet grasping the distinction is beyond essential to your success.
Remember "The Big Short" and our red, green, and purple lines? Without putting them on a chart, I can describe a few price points which represent a similar idea in that they are like successive nails in the coffin of the bears. Re-breaking the 'b-b line' around $19,800 is the first. Next, breaking $20k is a strong psychological'level', where the monthly turns green, and where a good amount of selling (buying?) the bottom has taken place. The last nail(s) in the coffin are the b-d baseline at $21,300 which is confluenced by the (newer) 2-4 channel line on the 1d chart, upon breaking this we should also blow through the last important level which would be purple wave 4 at around $22,400.
A ~100% rise within 9 days is still in the cards my frens. Impossible you say? Have you forgotten what the king is capable of? Perhaps we are all in store for a reminder. Honey badger don't care about no worship of the dark juans. Look around you, is everyone an economist? Mesmerized by the fed minutes? Shhh, listen closely. You can here it coming. Soon comes the SLAP in the face.
With that, we leave you.
Zooming out to larger time frames, as previously mentioned, a new count emerges which ends with a Non-Limiiting Triangle. This is quite a beautiful triple combination which is now the primary count on the 3d (shown using an index as opposed to Bitstamp here) and weekly chart.
We now have 3 primary counts to track, each on a different time frame, namely the 1d, 3d/1w, and 1M. They are all great counts which 'jive' nicely and can certainly coexist (at least for now) as they all have largely the same implications as to what comes next (a big move up).
And so while the easily swayed, impatient and convictionless react, we simply sharpen our knives of understanding, and prepare for the inevitable. Again, we will remind all that these numerous charts help inform 'explanatory analysis' which is the rigorous process that eventually helps inform 'predictive analysis' ...the lines of which can, at times, be blurred yet grasping the distinction is beyond essential to your success.
Remember "The Big Short" and our red, green, and purple lines? Without putting them on a chart, I can describe a few price points which represent a similar idea in that they are like successive nails in the coffin of the bears. Re-breaking the 'b-b line' around $19,800 is the first. Next, breaking $20k is a strong psychological'level', where the monthly turns green, and where a good amount of selling (buying?) the bottom has taken place. The last nail(s) in the coffin are the b-d baseline at $21,300 which is confluenced by the (newer) 2-4 channel line on the 1d chart, upon breaking this we should also blow through the last important level which would be purple wave 4 at around $22,400.
A ~100% rise within 9 days is still in the cards my frens. Impossible you say? Have you forgotten what the king is capable of? Perhaps we are all in store for a reminder. Honey badger don't care about no worship of the dark juans. Look around you, is everyone an economist? Mesmerized by the fed minutes? Shhh, listen closely. You can here it coming. Soon comes the SLAP in the face.
With that, we leave you.
Comment:
The b-b line is now officially re-broken! Check.
The $20k level is broken. Check.
The newer 2-4 line is up next, which similar to all other descending trendlines, is easier to break with the passage of time. The new price point is $20,800. All aboard the choo choo train. Here comes the momentum of the market who's participants are all on the wrong side. Soon we get the "I don't get it but 'why' is it going up now?" LOL. T'will be fun to watch the psychology change as all the group think gradually then suddenly shifts and eventually reaches a euphoria as we get a taste of the excitement and building anticipation that will be resurfacing prior to the 'real' bull market next year.
The last nails in the coffin (and where the panic to buy sets in) is the b-d line which is still around $21,3xx and the wave 4 high around $22,000.
The $20k level is broken. Check.
The newer 2-4 line is up next, which similar to all other descending trendlines, is easier to break with the passage of time. The new price point is $20,800. All aboard the choo choo train. Here comes the momentum of the market who's participants are all on the wrong side. Soon we get the "I don't get it but 'why' is it going up now?" LOL. T'will be fun to watch the psychology change as all the group think gradually then suddenly shifts and eventually reaches a euphoria as we get a taste of the excitement and building anticipation that will be resurfacing prior to the 'real' bull market next year.
The last nails in the coffin (and where the panic to buy sets in) is the b-d line which is still around $21,3xx and the wave 4 high around $22,000.
Comment:
Bull div on the weekly RSI coming out of most. oversold. ever.
4 months of bottom selling all needs to buy back in. At once. Can they all fit through the door? How small is it? : )
Time expired for new lows a long time ago as we spoke about, but now we have reached the point in time where everyone else realizes that time has expired, and soon, everyone realizes that everyone has realized it. How much coin will be available for sale in the $2x,xxx's on the way up? Not enough.
Night night bears. Nobody sneeze...you might jus cause a chain reaction.
Time expired for new lows a long time ago as we spoke about, but now we have reached the point in time where everyone else realizes that time has expired, and soon, everyone realizes that everyone has realized it. How much coin will be available for sale in the $2x,xxx's on the way up? Not enough.
Night night bears. Nobody sneeze...you might jus cause a chain reaction.
Comment:
There are two distinct ways to measure what I called in a past video 'the construction within' of a triangle (a misnomer in the sense that we are focusing on it's periphery-yet a nomer with regard to its' relation to 'within').
Early in the book, the question of 'where (when) does wave e end in relation to the apex of the triangle?' is asked. Later, the question of 'where (when) does the apex end in relation to waves a-e?' is asked. The latter, involves a calculation which beneficially can be speculatively determined 'during the fact' and more *heavily weights* the formation of the triangle (presupposing which 'contra base-line' should be used) as opposed to the time taken by wave e. While you might say that the former is *more focused on the degree of congestion, the latter (shown in my chart) still implies a degree of congestion. A greater than 40% apex (or relatively more obtuse) would be what I call 'decongestion' where as a less than 20% apex (acute) would be deemed 'congestion'.
With regard to my chart below, the employment of an 'a-e' line would technically be improper due to the fact it breaks the horizontal plane...but that's not the only reason I didn't use it.
My question to you would be: What is the elephant 'within' the room? When you are ready, you will realize that you have realized what you have realized with real !'s and you will seA it was put their for a reason.
Early in the book, the question of 'where (when) does wave e end in relation to the apex of the triangle?' is asked. Later, the question of 'where (when) does the apex end in relation to waves a-e?' is asked. The latter, involves a calculation which beneficially can be speculatively determined 'during the fact' and more *heavily weights* the formation of the triangle (presupposing which 'contra base-line' should be used) as opposed to the time taken by wave e. While you might say that the former is *more focused on the degree of congestion, the latter (shown in my chart) still implies a degree of congestion. A greater than 40% apex (or relatively more obtuse) would be what I call 'decongestion' where as a less than 20% apex (acute) would be deemed 'congestion'.
With regard to my chart below, the employment of an 'a-e' line would technically be improper due to the fact it breaks the horizontal plane...but that's not the only reason I didn't use it.
My question to you would be: What is the elephant 'within' the room? When you are ready, you will realize that you have realized what you have realized with real !'s and you will seA it was put their for a reason.
Comment:
A preliminary comment on the imminent release of the 'next next' preimage...there are two major scenarios shown (green vs red) which loosely project how a triangle should play out on the *weekly chart. You will note that due to the manifestation of our Monthly wave A as an 'unclear' (8), there will be an inverse efficacy at play between 'where' the weekly wave A ends as compared to 'where' the monthly wave A ends. A timing differnce. Considering the above, you will note that I am still expecting the green scenario (>) to play out, but beginning from this week (with wave A effectively 'ending' ~77 weeks long).
Comment:
And so the games begin.
'next next' preimage:
(double click on the image (oy pun not intended) in order to get
the link which serves as the preimage LOL to the hash)
Hut hut hike!
'next next' preimage:
the link which serves as the preimage LOL to the hash)
Hut hut hike!
Comment:
Back to our successive nails in the coffin price points (keep in mind that most of these are descending lines thus become easier to break with the passage of time):
Former 1d chart 2-4 channel line-check
Psychological s/r level of $20k-check
Revised 1d chart 2-4 channel line-check
B-D baseline 3d chart (now at $20,800)-pending
Wave 4 (largest) high-pending
Can you hear those clicks? If you listen closely you can hear the first rustlings of bears deleting their charts : )
Former 1d chart 2-4 channel line-check
Psychological s/r level of $20k-check
Revised 1d chart 2-4 channel line-check
B-D baseline 3d chart (now at $20,800)-pending
Wave 4 (largest) high-pending
Can you hear those clicks? If you listen closely you can hear the first rustlings of bears deleting their charts : )
Comment:
Another (consecutive) green week further solidifies the bullish divergence on RSI, yet the fact that we are rebounding from the *most oversold market in the history of bitcoin* seems to be completely lost on this years batch of 'expert' technical analysts.
It would appear after failing to forsee the huge downside risk of the market back at $6x,xxx they were forced to resort to 'TA' to justify 'buying the dip' all the way down to $40k 'support'. Welp, that didn't work out so well, thus a new 'big idea' arises leading to 4 months of selling their (supposedly) 'cheap coins' below $20k...failing to even make.a.new.low.
Alas, a new field of study is needed to justify this latest expertise: macro-economics. Will the fed pivot?! Won't they!? Omg wot is going to happen? What are minutes saying!? Powell's cousin's dog just tweeted that they REALLY mean it this time. What about a pause?! What about the BOE!? And the BOJ!? What about the 'correlation' to equities? (note to self: always remember to pitch uncorrelated vs correlated according to juan's current market bias) I don't get it, why isn't it going to $10k already!?
Hmmmmm. How well did this macro-focused logic serve us back in the $6x,xxx's when the market could NEVER crash because muh central banks r going to print money full-on zimbabwe style? (or the gubmint is going to print the stimmies...it's all just so darn confusing)
Alas, it all begins to set in. Maybe...just maybe...the market is not going to accomodate your 4 months of sub-$20k bottom selling and reward you and all your buddies by allowing you to buy back all of those coins you sold to ______ who has been waiting for 2 years for this opportunity. But-but-but that 'fractal' of 2018 is justtt perfectly superimposed (forced?) onto the chart showing the next big leg down coming! ...any day now.
It's actually not all that hard understand using basic TA an actual familiarity with the history of bitcoin to grasp how silly these popular comparisons are ...nobody show all these brilliant tech bros and HNWI's turned technical analysts turned macro economists this chart:
Since the above largely does not consider elliot wave which is by far the most important form of analysis lets dive into that now:
By virtue of the fact that we have temporarily broken back below the revised, true, 2-4 line we can *now say that a terminal (!different degree than formerly contemplated and correctly dimsissed) has formed...which jives perfectly with the idea that the bears are exhuasted and only continue to add fuel to the coming fire--as terminals are retraced much faster than traditional impulses--and signify the *coming strength of the new trend in hte market.
It also makes perfect sense that it would form in the manner it has, with (smallest degree) wave 3 ending higher than it's lowest point via a contracting triangle and wave 5 just barely making a new low. Further, complexity wise (levels) nothing has changed: the base level complexity of a terminal is 0...given the fact one of it's three 'impulses' (which are structurally corrections) subdivides into a level 1 double combination we add back 1 to the base level ariving at a grand total of level 1 complexity for (largest degree) purple wave 5, as we had already presupposed, whether that would actually manifest as a truly subdivided wave or indirectly imposed as prolly some sort of 'complex mono'.
And now we have even further strengthened the similarity between the two unextended waves of our largest degree impulse, namely 1 and 5, in that there is now a .382 relationship in Time (as well as price which we mentioned).
We have our popcorn ready and eagerly await our successive 'nail in the coffin' price levels which should be furiously broken subsequent to what will likely become yet another futile attempt by the bears to take the market lower, adding even more fuel to the proverbial fire. Again, most of these price points are based upon *descending trendlines, which means with every passing time unit they get easier and easier to break.
With that, we leave you.
It would appear after failing to forsee the huge downside risk of the market back at $6x,xxx they were forced to resort to 'TA' to justify 'buying the dip' all the way down to $40k 'support'. Welp, that didn't work out so well, thus a new 'big idea' arises leading to 4 months of selling their (supposedly) 'cheap coins' below $20k...failing to even make.a.new.low.
Alas, a new field of study is needed to justify this latest expertise: macro-economics. Will the fed pivot?! Won't they!? Omg wot is going to happen? What are minutes saying!? Powell's cousin's dog just tweeted that they REALLY mean it this time. What about a pause?! What about the BOE!? And the BOJ!? What about the 'correlation' to equities? (note to self: always remember to pitch uncorrelated vs correlated according to juan's current market bias) I don't get it, why isn't it going to $10k already!?
Hmmmmm. How well did this macro-focused logic serve us back in the $6x,xxx's when the market could NEVER crash because muh central banks r going to print money full-on zimbabwe style? (or the gubmint is going to print the stimmies...it's all just so darn confusing)
Alas, it all begins to set in. Maybe...just maybe...the market is not going to accomodate your 4 months of sub-$20k bottom selling and reward you and all your buddies by allowing you to buy back all of those coins you sold to ______ who has been waiting for 2 years for this opportunity. But-but-but that 'fractal' of 2018 is justtt perfectly superimposed (forced?) onto the chart showing the next big leg down coming! ...any day now.
It's actually not all that hard understand using basic TA an actual familiarity with the history of bitcoin to grasp how silly these popular comparisons are ...nobody show all these brilliant tech bros and HNWI's turned technical analysts turned macro economists this chart:
Since the above largely does not consider elliot wave which is by far the most important form of analysis lets dive into that now:
By virtue of the fact that we have temporarily broken back below the revised, true, 2-4 line we can *now say that a terminal (!different degree than formerly contemplated and correctly dimsissed) has formed...which jives perfectly with the idea that the bears are exhuasted and only continue to add fuel to the coming fire--as terminals are retraced much faster than traditional impulses--and signify the *coming strength of the new trend in hte market.
It also makes perfect sense that it would form in the manner it has, with (smallest degree) wave 3 ending higher than it's lowest point via a contracting triangle and wave 5 just barely making a new low. Further, complexity wise (levels) nothing has changed: the base level complexity of a terminal is 0...given the fact one of it's three 'impulses' (which are structurally corrections) subdivides into a level 1 double combination we add back 1 to the base level ariving at a grand total of level 1 complexity for (largest degree) purple wave 5, as we had already presupposed, whether that would actually manifest as a truly subdivided wave or indirectly imposed as prolly some sort of 'complex mono'.
And now we have even further strengthened the similarity between the two unextended waves of our largest degree impulse, namely 1 and 5, in that there is now a .382 relationship in Time (as well as price which we mentioned).
We have our popcorn ready and eagerly await our successive 'nail in the coffin' price levels which should be furiously broken subsequent to what will likely become yet another futile attempt by the bears to take the market lower, adding even more fuel to the proverbial fire. Again, most of these price points are based upon *descending trendlines, which means with every passing time unit they get easier and easier to break.
With that, we leave you.
Comment:
Also, that is a hashmark denoting 'candlestick measurement' of the high below smallest degree wave 2 (of the terminal)...juan could see how that could easily be confused with a compexity level underline which it is not!
Comment:
Yet ANOTHER failed attempt by the bears yesterday, digging themselves even deeper into the hole. With the price at $19,7xx at the time of writing, we have now broken back above our 'True' 2-4 line and should be reclaiming our psychologically important level of $20k imminently with our sights on the (now much lower) b-d baseline at around $20,400. The final nail in the coffin being the purple wave 4 high at around $22,400. With both the monthly candle and what looks to be our 3rd consecutive weekly candle now having turned green, and the bears having added *even more fuel to the fire* it wouldn't be surprising to see us light the match and break them all by the days end.
Comment:
And there it is...the match has been struck and the bears have yet *even more* coin to buy back, with less time and price available in order to do so.
The selling exhaustion was pushed to it's extreme limit as all coins available for sale sub 20k are in the hands of the smart money, volume completely dried up, until one whale looks around and see's the competition for his prey quietly closing in and says "yes I'll take all you have to offer and more". The last day or so was the all you have to offer part and the 'and more' part is occurring as we speak, but amidst realization by the competition that they have lost their first mover advantage and thus it has become all that much more important to move second as opposed to third, but the first still want's his/her 'and more' : )
...couple that with any and everyone of all size in the market place who would even think about the notion of selling completely out of the market, and the medium/small size players realizing that the consolidation (really accumulation) is over and the direction of the market has been decided thus they will all be piling in and chasing the price, eating up the small coins available for sale that those who have sold for 4 months straight must buy back at any price.
Smallest terminal wave 5 which indirectly was forseen as ending at a .382 relationship in time between larger waves 1 and 5, effectively ends a bit later time wise and has now been fully retraced within the time it took to form, confirming from an elliot POV the larger phenomenan that is currently at play in the market.
Back to our successive nails in the coffin:
-'True' 2-4 line (properly messy) on the 1d chart is unequivocally broken (check)
-'B-D' baseline on the 3d triangle is now shattered (check)
-Psychologically important horizontal level of $20k is shattered (check)
Now, momentum kicks in as we push towards and shatter the wave 4 high on the 1d chart (last nail in the coffin) as everyone continues to gradually turning to suddenly realize that everyone else has and is realizing we are taking off. A lingering subtle panic deep down in the belly of the bears which formed over the last couple of weeks begins to turn into all out unignorable panic as they realize just how small the door is to get what they have lost back and scramble to get even a tiny piece of the coins available for sale between here and the wave 4 high.
When we break the wave 4 high the disbelief begins to set in as the price starts to break upwards like a hot knife on butter due to the large gap in price on the monthly line chart between the wave 4 high and 35k.
Always good to mind your gaps. Anyone heard from the bears?
With that we leave you.
The selling exhaustion was pushed to it's extreme limit as all coins available for sale sub 20k are in the hands of the smart money, volume completely dried up, until one whale looks around and see's the competition for his prey quietly closing in and says "yes I'll take all you have to offer and more". The last day or so was the all you have to offer part and the 'and more' part is occurring as we speak, but amidst realization by the competition that they have lost their first mover advantage and thus it has become all that much more important to move second as opposed to third, but the first still want's his/her 'and more' : )
...couple that with any and everyone of all size in the market place who would even think about the notion of selling completely out of the market, and the medium/small size players realizing that the consolidation (really accumulation) is over and the direction of the market has been decided thus they will all be piling in and chasing the price, eating up the small coins available for sale that those who have sold for 4 months straight must buy back at any price.
Smallest terminal wave 5 which indirectly was forseen as ending at a .382 relationship in time between larger waves 1 and 5, effectively ends a bit later time wise and has now been fully retraced within the time it took to form, confirming from an elliot POV the larger phenomenan that is currently at play in the market.
Back to our successive nails in the coffin:
-'True' 2-4 line (properly messy) on the 1d chart is unequivocally broken (check)
-'B-D' baseline on the 3d triangle is now shattered (check)
-Psychologically important horizontal level of $20k is shattered (check)
Now, momentum kicks in as we push towards and shatter the wave 4 high on the 1d chart (last nail in the coffin) as everyone continues to gradually turning to suddenly realize that everyone else has and is realizing we are taking off. A lingering subtle panic deep down in the belly of the bears which formed over the last couple of weeks begins to turn into all out unignorable panic as they realize just how small the door is to get what they have lost back and scramble to get even a tiny piece of the coins available for sale between here and the wave 4 high.
When we break the wave 4 high the disbelief begins to set in as the price starts to break upwards like a hot knife on butter due to the large gap in price on the monthly line chart between the wave 4 high and 35k.
Always good to mind your gaps. Anyone heard from the bears?
With that we leave you.
Comment:
-'True' 2-4 line (properly messy) on the 1d chart is unequivocally broken (check)
-'B-D' baseline on the 3d triangle is now shattered (check)
-Psychologically important horizontal level of $20k is shattered (check)
-wave 4 high ('now we're gonna take care of you')
-'B-D' baseline on the 3d triangle is now shattered (check)
-Psychologically important horizontal level of $20k is shattered (check)
-wave 4 high ('now we're gonna take care of you')
Comment:
To respond to those asking what my thoughts are on the recent theatrical tactics in this space, and if my view on the market has changed, I'll briefly say a few things.
First off, regarding my view on the markets: the hardest thing to do in these markets is to keep your head and maintain the ability to think clearly amidst all of the fog and misdirection. Again, don't miss the forest for the trees. The move was from 65k in October of last year to 17xxx over the summer, since that time, the money to be made is quite obviously to the upside. We have been emphatically and publicly bullish since the 21xxx's, nothing has changed, the fact that we have gone a bit lower is but a gift we should all be thankful for!
In terms of the comical theater, I have one simple question composed of two words: why now? We spoke about the presence and flaws of the *function of 'market making' long ago. It was quite clear that 'someone' (this cycle's someone) was in trouble back in summer of 21. Thus the need for the exit pump and (poorly) contrived futures-etf narrative. Moving forward, we publicly screamed from the hill tops about this 'market making' problem when the dinasours tried to stop the asteroid back in Spring earlier this year, and than it manifested quite spectacularly in the summer in the form of a violent move down to below 20k.
So, again, WHY NOW? Not only did this cycles participants dampen the move up, but their attempts to maintain control over the markets let to their spectacular demise. If FTX has these balance sheet problems in Q2, what is the significance to the market (price of bitcoin) now!? Furthermore, why is the removal of this behavior from the marketplace A BAD THING!? What is the value of bitcoin?! Bitcoin's price is derived from an appraisal of it's current group of exchanges, and more importantly, it is certainly not derived from certain exchanges who have/or will engaged in the function of 'market making'.
In fact, it is this bunch who is actively fighting to prevent Bitcoin's unstoppable growth via their market-making strategies which dampen it's success via a siphoning off of value into other markets, only to eventually realize just how futile of a strategy this is in the long run, as every cycle has a different *who that is funded to fulfill the function until there are no more who's left to convince to sacrafice themselves.
So, again, WHY NOW!? The manifestation was in Q1 and Q2, and it was a great thing for the market. There is a big difference between an exchange going down, such as MT Gox (which was one of a few exchanges at the time) going down and losing a signifcant fraction of the total supply of bitcoin, which there was a big imminent risk of such hitting the market.
Since that time, we have had dozens (hundreds?) of exchanges go down, throughout bull markets and bear markets, all of which pale in comparison, their significance only decreasing vastly over time as the total number of on-ramps has exploded, security practices improved, and number of coins at risk in any one place decreased. If 'the market' actually cared about this YOU WOULD SEE IT alt coins (mainly the ones most used to siphon value off via 'defi' and exchange coins), which we got a taste of back in the summer.
There is simply no logical reason any of this matters whatsoever NOW, nor one that would explain *Bitcoin's price flash crashing, and especially flash crashing without greater crashes in previously mentioned coins. This is very similar to the futures etf pump in that the poorly contrived narrative is completely detached at a causal level from the subsequent *temporary* manipulation of the market which never lasts.
While certainly feel bad for the FTX users who might potentially lose funds, from a market perspective the only way to slice this is as a *good thing. If anything you could say it is bitcoin that users have to go out in the market and replace, in reality that is insignicant though, but you get the point.
To conclude I will simply ask you this: WHERE WAS ALL OF THIS SYMPATHY FOR ARTHUR HAYES!? This is an amazing comparison as it beautifully illustrates the difference between 'market making' and providing an extremely useful service (an in arthurs case doing it all by the book). Why did regulators have a problem with him!? Because he called out the sackler family? Did he lose ANY customer funds? Regulators were PROTECTING CONSUMERS?! Really? Or protecting the rent-seeking behavior based in the revolving-doors of the old fiat-financial system paradigm.
The propaganda is truly pathetic, this is much closer to the best news Bitcoin has ever experienced than the worse, it is laughable. Outside of the possibility users could lose funds, we should all be celebrating. If the dinasour NY-based legacy financial system wants to regain any tiny bit of significance in these markets
they will have to offer the same products that flourish over-sees and drop the fiat-based surveillance mechanisms which died in 2009. Or you know, start looking for the next greater fool to help 'make markets' on our way to 1 million per coin, if there are even any left out there outside of the fed. And it's no secret they have been involved from the outset, losing more and and more of an effect with every new market cycle.
Why again did the price drop? Yet gold, stocks, and everything else the FTX's of the world and their 'backers' are invested in appreciate? Remember how lasting the effect of that Futures-based ETF was LMAO (right b/c the volume of bitcoin is influenced by the accredited investor protection based financial products in the US), welp I would say in hindsight we will look back upon this ridiculous theater in the same way.
Got sub 20-k coins? Get them while you can. With that we leave you.
First off, regarding my view on the markets: the hardest thing to do in these markets is to keep your head and maintain the ability to think clearly amidst all of the fog and misdirection. Again, don't miss the forest for the trees. The move was from 65k in October of last year to 17xxx over the summer, since that time, the money to be made is quite obviously to the upside. We have been emphatically and publicly bullish since the 21xxx's, nothing has changed, the fact that we have gone a bit lower is but a gift we should all be thankful for!
In terms of the comical theater, I have one simple question composed of two words: why now? We spoke about the presence and flaws of the *function of 'market making' long ago. It was quite clear that 'someone' (this cycle's someone) was in trouble back in summer of 21. Thus the need for the exit pump and (poorly) contrived futures-etf narrative. Moving forward, we publicly screamed from the hill tops about this 'market making' problem when the dinasours tried to stop the asteroid back in Spring earlier this year, and than it manifested quite spectacularly in the summer in the form of a violent move down to below 20k.
So, again, WHY NOW? Not only did this cycles participants dampen the move up, but their attempts to maintain control over the markets let to their spectacular demise. If FTX has these balance sheet problems in Q2, what is the significance to the market (price of bitcoin) now!? Furthermore, why is the removal of this behavior from the marketplace A BAD THING!? What is the value of bitcoin?! Bitcoin's price is derived from an appraisal of it's current group of exchanges, and more importantly, it is certainly not derived from certain exchanges who have/or will engaged in the function of 'market making'.
In fact, it is this bunch who is actively fighting to prevent Bitcoin's unstoppable growth via their market-making strategies which dampen it's success via a siphoning off of value into other markets, only to eventually realize just how futile of a strategy this is in the long run, as every cycle has a different *who that is funded to fulfill the function until there are no more who's left to convince to sacrafice themselves.
So, again, WHY NOW!? The manifestation was in Q1 and Q2, and it was a great thing for the market. There is a big difference between an exchange going down, such as MT Gox (which was one of a few exchanges at the time) going down and losing a signifcant fraction of the total supply of bitcoin, which there was a big imminent risk of such hitting the market.
Since that time, we have had dozens (hundreds?) of exchanges go down, throughout bull markets and bear markets, all of which pale in comparison, their significance only decreasing vastly over time as the total number of on-ramps has exploded, security practices improved, and number of coins at risk in any one place decreased. If 'the market' actually cared about this YOU WOULD SEE IT alt coins (mainly the ones most used to siphon value off via 'defi' and exchange coins), which we got a taste of back in the summer.
There is simply no logical reason any of this matters whatsoever NOW, nor one that would explain *Bitcoin's price flash crashing, and especially flash crashing without greater crashes in previously mentioned coins. This is very similar to the futures etf pump in that the poorly contrived narrative is completely detached at a causal level from the subsequent *temporary* manipulation of the market which never lasts.
While certainly feel bad for the FTX users who might potentially lose funds, from a market perspective the only way to slice this is as a *good thing. If anything you could say it is bitcoin that users have to go out in the market and replace, in reality that is insignicant though, but you get the point.
To conclude I will simply ask you this: WHERE WAS ALL OF THIS SYMPATHY FOR ARTHUR HAYES!? This is an amazing comparison as it beautifully illustrates the difference between 'market making' and providing an extremely useful service (an in arthurs case doing it all by the book). Why did regulators have a problem with him!? Because he called out the sackler family? Did he lose ANY customer funds? Regulators were PROTECTING CONSUMERS?! Really? Or protecting the rent-seeking behavior based in the revolving-doors of the old fiat-financial system paradigm.
The propaganda is truly pathetic, this is much closer to the best news Bitcoin has ever experienced than the worse, it is laughable. Outside of the possibility users could lose funds, we should all be celebrating. If the dinasour NY-based legacy financial system wants to regain any tiny bit of significance in these markets
they will have to offer the same products that flourish over-sees and drop the fiat-based surveillance mechanisms which died in 2009. Or you know, start looking for the next greater fool to help 'make markets' on our way to 1 million per coin, if there are even any left out there outside of the fed. And it's no secret they have been involved from the outset, losing more and and more of an effect with every new market cycle.
Why again did the price drop? Yet gold, stocks, and everything else the FTX's of the world and their 'backers' are invested in appreciate? Remember how lasting the effect of that Futures-based ETF was LMAO (right b/c the volume of bitcoin is influenced by the accredited investor protection based financial products in the US), welp I would say in hindsight we will look back upon this ridiculous theater in the same way.
Got sub 20-k coins? Get them while you can. With that we leave you.
Comment:
"Bitcoin's price is *not* derived from an appraisal"
Comment:
While I maintain there was clearly 'manipulation' here that sticks out like a sore thumb from any vantage point you might take, it is important to note that such an evaluation is contemplated with the goal of understanding what is going on in the market. I could not care less about motivations, who, why, etc, what I care about is being able to judge whether or not there is something 'wrong' about my analysis in a big way. If I was wrong, and this was the start of some major phase shift into significantly lower prices for a long time to come, I would love to change my analysis accordingly to be on the 'right' side of things. That is simply not the case here. Whether or not you agree with my take on last week's theater surrounding FTX, I can tell you that the perspective of elliot wave still completely agrees that this latest drop in price is yet more classic price action behavior which you will find at the *end* of a major trend.
Let's talk waves. First thing to note is that the following 3d chart scenario depicting a triple combination ending with a non-limiting triangle is now officially eliminated.
The implications of this count (in terms of what comes next) were actually comparably less bullish than the implications of what is now the primary count, a standard (complex) flat correction for our largest wave A which has been quite impressively drawn out and overextended for a long time now. This is classic terminal wave behavior.
Before we get into the above, it is extremely important to understand a major philosophy of my analysis: in certain contexts it can be equally important (if not more) to be able discern what is *not* happening than what is happening. This is a key part of understanding why I remain so incredibly bullish despite this (what will be) flash crash. Again, if I was 'wrong' on my view of the market, I would love to be the first one to admit such, yet there is literally nothing from an elliot perspective to support such. Let me explain:
If I put on my bearish hat for a second, and do my absolute best to justify the start of a *coming huge move down as opposed to the actual (wildly overextended) current conditions, it would require justifying the following supposed count:
While there is a lot wrong with how you would even come to believe this was the count in the first place (in other words *indirectly*), it violates what is in practice a MAJOR rule with regard to time. Without, even touching on why this count does not make sense *indirectly for a ton of reasons, I can already conclude it is not correct from this simple yet extremely important rule about time (described in the chart).
Why is this above so important?! Because again despite everything that is wrong *indirectly leading up to this price action which would preclude a correction that begins and ends with the two vertical black lines that are shown, the only possible way to explain what happens within these lines would be with a flat correction *which can not be the count* due to Time. And really, not only would it have to be a flat, but it would have to be a c-failure flat. Not only would such a flat be contradictive to the reality that two counter-directional waves are reliably followed by a third, powerful, time consuming wave (a predictive analytical tenet that we speak about ad nausiem which largely exists outside of any specific *count), but further, supposed waves a, b, and c would all be *equal* in time. THREE ADJACENT WAVES OF THE SAME DEGREE CAN NOT BE EQUAL IN TIME.
In my view, one of the most important realizations to appreciate in the practical application of elliot wave analysis is being able to grasp the 'power' implied by various types of corrections. In this case, the fact that we can easily rule out a C-failure negates any supposed significant, lasting, downside price action to come. In reality, nothing leading up to the price action in question (both in what most recently precededed it *and* in the entire history of Bitcoin) would have led me to even seriously consider it, yet as always I keep an open mind such that I will look at what is happening directly, and even that clearly agrees with my conclusions.
Moving on, so what is happening?
We have classic herky-jerky, over-extended, 'messiness' in price action. Another huge realization to be had in your studies is the existence of of the last of those three terms. When you have an 'unclean' or really, in this case, 'terminally messy' line in any realistic count you would consider, it is extremely reliable in that you can be sure you are at the last stages of the current trend. Pretty much the only exception to the above rule would be when you are in an X-wave of a running double three before a large extended third wave *which is clearly not the case here*.
We are in a terminal 5th wave (nothing has changed degree wise) which actually still would end in a .382 relationship to wave 1 of the same degree, but in a different way: wave 1 x .382 = wave 5 vs wave 5 x 1.382 = wave 1 ...wait what? Aren't those the same thing? No : ) Are you suffiently confused yet? While the existence of the above is not so important, or necessary, as a characteristic of terminal impulses is in their frequent breaking of all the other rules of EW in many senses, it is worth noting. While this smallest 5th wave of larger terminal 5th is a bit unorthodox in that wave B goes high enough to contemplate the *direct classification of the larger correction as an elongated flat, the power implications of specific types of corrections are to an extent negated when they occur within either a triangle or terminal. In other words, usually elongated flats will not be fully retraced by the subsequent wave of the same degree that immediately follows, yet in this context expecting it to be fully retraced within the time it took to form is precisely what you would be expecting.
Let's talk waves. First thing to note is that the following 3d chart scenario depicting a triple combination ending with a non-limiting triangle is now officially eliminated.
Before we get into the above, it is extremely important to understand a major philosophy of my analysis: in certain contexts it can be equally important (if not more) to be able discern what is *not* happening than what is happening. This is a key part of understanding why I remain so incredibly bullish despite this (what will be) flash crash. Again, if I was 'wrong' on my view of the market, I would love to be the first one to admit such, yet there is literally nothing from an elliot perspective to support such. Let me explain:
If I put on my bearish hat for a second, and do my absolute best to justify the start of a *coming huge move down as opposed to the actual (wildly overextended) current conditions, it would require justifying the following supposed count:
Why is this above so important?! Because again despite everything that is wrong *indirectly leading up to this price action which would preclude a correction that begins and ends with the two vertical black lines that are shown, the only possible way to explain what happens within these lines would be with a flat correction *which can not be the count* due to Time. And really, not only would it have to be a flat, but it would have to be a c-failure flat. Not only would such a flat be contradictive to the reality that two counter-directional waves are reliably followed by a third, powerful, time consuming wave (a predictive analytical tenet that we speak about ad nausiem which largely exists outside of any specific *count), but further, supposed waves a, b, and c would all be *equal* in time. THREE ADJACENT WAVES OF THE SAME DEGREE CAN NOT BE EQUAL IN TIME.
In my view, one of the most important realizations to appreciate in the practical application of elliot wave analysis is being able to grasp the 'power' implied by various types of corrections. In this case, the fact that we can easily rule out a C-failure negates any supposed significant, lasting, downside price action to come. In reality, nothing leading up to the price action in question (both in what most recently precededed it *and* in the entire history of Bitcoin) would have led me to even seriously consider it, yet as always I keep an open mind such that I will look at what is happening directly, and even that clearly agrees with my conclusions.
Moving on, so what is happening?
We are in a terminal 5th wave (nothing has changed degree wise) which actually still would end in a .382 relationship to wave 1 of the same degree, but in a different way: wave 1 x .382 = wave 5 vs wave 5 x 1.382 = wave 1 ...wait what? Aren't those the same thing? No : ) Are you suffiently confused yet? While the existence of the above is not so important, or necessary, as a characteristic of terminal impulses is in their frequent breaking of all the other rules of EW in many senses, it is worth noting. While this smallest 5th wave of larger terminal 5th is a bit unorthodox in that wave B goes high enough to contemplate the *direct classification of the larger correction as an elongated flat, the power implications of specific types of corrections are to an extent negated when they occur within either a triangle or terminal. In other words, usually elongated flats will not be fully retraced by the subsequent wave of the same degree that immediately follows, yet in this context expecting it to be fully retraced within the time it took to form is precisely what you would be expecting.
Comment:
"While *the smallest 5th wave of *this larger terminal 5th is a bit unorthodox in that"
