The future need not resemble the past. Therefore comparative analysis can be wrong. Do your own analysis.
Some TA indicates we hit the bottom at $3100. Similarities to 2014/15 bottom:
a) Price dropped about 50% (not that important, but relevant) b) Price very close the 200 weekly MA c) Indicators like RSI at levels similar to 2014/15 bottom. My own indicator also indicating bottom. d) Historical technical double bottom (assuming we actually bottomed). See orange dash line @ 34.588 & the "Basically Identical" arrows.
BUT:
To put things in context:
1) Given that a), b), c), d) were good buy signals & 2) We had a local technical double bottom & 3) The experts did not think we'd drop bellow $4800 (if we dropped from 6k)
Given all that, the overall buy volume was weak, scattered, late and not indicative of capitulation volume.
Couple of other things:
a) It seems that buyers "expected" the second drop from 4.2k to 3.1k as the second buy peak on the Volume indicator(s) was higher than the first. Very unusual in the context of capitulation. b) Price landed the 200 weekly MA way too perfectly. Not a wick below the 200 weekly MA on the 4H, 12H, 1D or 2D charts. Seems like a controlled (or cautious) landing. Very suspicious. c) We stayed at the bottom for nearly 4 days. Historically that's not how bottoms occur. d) Too obvious a place to bottom.
Conclusion:
This was not capitulation. I expect more sideways (above $3100 to perhaps trap some bulls), then lower. We might see the 200 weekly MA act as long term resistance.
Thanks for sharing this. It reminded me of a chart posted by @InvestingScope ....
gotit
⋅
@DVemer, I like it. Perhaps it's my bias, but the idea seems right to me.
gotit
⋅
In summary, the sellers showed up on this drop from 6k to 3.1k, but the buyers did not. Either there were not enough buyers, or the price was not good enough for them to jump in. It's bad news either way.