So we're currently in wave B of the Wave 4 correction, which has gone into a rising wedge. This is a bearish formation with bearish breakout likely. The rest of wave C is uncertain. Wedges are messy. Plus it's BTC so anything can happen. Two possible scenarios shown on the chart.
Notes:
- Wave C, leg B - see question marks - is uncertain and not scaled to time. It could go sideways in messy formations indefinitely. - Orange trend line is long term log-scaled Wave 3 channel high, could be strong support.
I'm 90% out of all crypto, BTC and Alts, until a bottom gets clearer. Virtually all Alt's are acting as BTC betas.
So I decided instead of buying BTC now to snipe Alt lows, I'm staying conservative and waiting for a bottom before buying back in to BTC and Alts. This could all drag out through August and if you add a hard fork to the mix, there's no saying how much further things could dip.
Good luck, trade safe.
Comment
⋅
Thanks to @RogueDave for spotting the wedge early. He has an excellent Bitstamp chart I basically copied over to my Coinbase chart:
Comments
RogueDave
⋅
Thank you @thetazeta for the shout out, recognition, and honoring my foundational work.
Since the chart you linked to and posted above, I have updated my chart and count. I no longer hold the opinion that post Wave III, Wave A has completed, instead it has yet to complete. The resolution of Wave A of IV should not complete in a matter of days.. All of Wave III required 2 & 1/2 years to play out. As such, for Wave IV to complete its A, B, & C waves in less than 3 months, would be a remarkably short time frame. For this reason alone, I have relabeled the points on the chart you linked to, to reflect the longer time that should be expected of Waves A, B, and C of Wave IV. Here is my revised wave count and current perspective. Counts are always subject to revision. until it is clear and undeniable the next wave has begun.
thetazeta
⋅
Awesome, thank you @RogueDave for the link. Your work is fantastic. I'll have to reconsider timeframe.
I initially had the same concern and tried a different setups, including that the June ATH is just a running flat B wave from an actual 5/25 ATH. Had to go back to the books on this, Frost and Prechter seem to say this would be wrong because a flat B wave can't show impulsive subwaves.
Then I saw this Goldman Sachs chart where their chief technician labeled the 6/15 low as A and thought well, they're the pro's, they should know:
But I agree the timeframe seems too squeezed. Perhaps after how explosive every day of the last few months has been, everyone's forgotten the larger 2 1/2 year picture we're in.
RogueDave
⋅
@thetazeta, That Goldman Sachs wave count is what my original, revised count was based upon. However in discussing it with an member here, @Staircase2Mars, he pointed out an overlap between their placement of i of 3 of V, and the correction of iv of 3 of V. which led to me revising my count. It's a sizable overlap. Even Goldman can make mistakes.
So I revised my Wave III count. The overlap has been demoted from a sub-wave to a sub-sub wave, though it's still present it is now only 2 points,and all the way back in Wave 1, rather than in Wave 3. This revised count also had the effect of making Wave 1 and Wave 5 much closer to equidistant or equal in size. The GS Wave 1 is pretty tiny with respect to the scale of Wave 5. You can see the discussion and current Wave III count in 2 charts here:
thetazeta
⋅
@RogueDave, I assumed the Goldman count allowed the i - iv overlap because the Jan 6 crash was thought to be caused by the Bank of China press release where they stated BTC isn't legal currency, announced meetings with the exchanges, etc and caused panic.
I got the count to work within the rules by counting wave 3 of 3 extended, full chart below. But I doubt I'd have done this without various events pushing 4 waves into 1 wave scope.
I think BTC is sort of putting EW to the test with its hacks, policy panics and other things Elliott couldn't imagine. Are these anomalies best treated by massaging the rules to preserve the natural "personality" the wave should have, or by massaging the count to preserve the psychological impact the price has? I don't think anyone knows the answer to this yet!
RogueDave
⋅
@thetazeta, Wave 3 is typically the longest. By EW rules, Wave 3 cannot be the shortest.
If you calculate your wave's height, you've got a massively extended wave 5. Roughly this is what I calculate in you chart:
Wave II to W1: 157 to 500 = 343 points
Wave 2 to W3: 293 to 1300 = 1000 points
Wave 4 to W5: 900 to 2980 = 2080 points
Technically, your count is acceptable under the Percentage test: "Elliott further discovered that in price terms, wave 3 is often the longest and never the shortest among waves 1, 3 and 5. As long as wave 3 undergoes a greater percentage movement than either wave 1 or 5, this rule is satisfied. It almost always holds on an arithmetic basis as well." Your count is an exception to the arithmetic vs percentage metric.
elliottwave.net/educational/basictenets/basics2.htm
So if that's what you want to run with, that's your choice. Not all students, or masters of EWT agree on counts.
If you want to see a really detailed count, follow this link, and click grab the lead graphic, and scroll back in time. This wave counter is detailed like you wouldn't believe, and comes up with an entirely different count. As near as I can determine, we're only in W3 of 5 on their count.
thetazeta
⋅
@RogueDave, Hmm re: the exception I'm not following, 3 has to be greater than either 1 or 5 in percent terms, almost always is also arithmetically; and in this case 3 is greater than 1 in both, no?
Def agree this count is dubious though. In percent terms it means either both or neither of 1 and 3 are extended - which are both fringy/suspicious. And it is relevant that the April-June rise just looks like a 3 wave, not a 5. Your count makes at least as much sense to me as mine. I've cloned it for reference hope you don't mind (:
Yeah user1000's chart has us still in W3. This was the second option I saw for strict rules and dropped after seeing the Goldman chart. Thanks, this is fell off my radar and it's making more and more sense looking at it now. Def a valid possibility to keep in mind as things progress
Since the chart you linked to and posted above, I have updated my chart and count. I no longer hold the opinion that post Wave III, Wave A has completed, instead it has yet to complete. The resolution of Wave A of IV should not complete in a matter of days.. All of Wave III required 2 & 1/2 years to play out. As such, for Wave IV to complete its A, B, & C waves in less than 3 months, would be a remarkably short time frame. For this reason alone, I have relabeled the points on the chart you linked to, to reflect the longer time that should be expected of Waves A, B, and C of Wave IV. Here is my revised wave count and current perspective. Counts are always subject to revision. until it is clear and undeniable the next wave has begun.