I no longer believe the correction (1163-219.03) is part of an expanding diagonal. As you know, each leg of a diagonal is a zigzag and this correction is just too complex to be part of a diagonal pattern. I am leaning more to chessnut's EW count of the correction which is a complex WXYXZ where wave Z is a contracting triangle ending at 219.03. And also oaksacorn EW count where 1163 is cycle degree wave I high. It makes more sense that the length and duration of the correction is closely related in time to the the previous impulse wave; approx 0.707 of the time it took to form the impulse to 1163.

As a general rule wave three should never be the shortest in an impulse wave so it should atleast be equal in length to wave one. On a semilog chart it's possible to measure the distance wave III should cover at a minimum. Using my calculator I tried to add the length of wave I to the end of wave II to get the minimum wave III target: e^((ln (1163)−ln(2.22))+ln (219.03)) where 1163 is the wave I high; 2.22 is the start of the impulse wave and 219.03 is the end of wave Z contracting triangle and wave II

=USD 114744.09

As a general rule wave three should never be the shortest in an impulse wave so it should atleast be equal in length to wave one. On a semilog chart it's possible to measure the distance wave III should cover at a minimum. Using my calculator I tried to add the length of wave I to the end of wave II to get the minimum wave III target: e^((ln (1163)−ln(2.22))+ln (219.03)) where 1163 is the wave I high; 2.22 is the start of the impulse wave and 219.03 is the end of wave Z contracting triangle and wave II

=USD 114744.09

blum

Over 100 000 seems rather mind-blowing. Many people find even 5000 unrealistic (and 5000 would be more than satisfying for me). But this is Bitcoin, who knows what lies ahead? But one needs to ask himself, what could push Bitcoin so high?

+2
Reply

RobbyWestHouston
blum

Well I agree with you... this is not possible... but also the EW math is correct... So something is wrong... Either the EW is wrong or the EW count should start some place else making a different wave count...different setup...

-1
Reply

MashuriClark
blum

I felt the same way about $1,000 when BTC was trading at $10

+1
Reply

oaksacorn
MashuriClark

Yep. 3.13%. If the world's 12 million plus millionaires decide to put just 3.13% of their 55 trillion.... just a lousy 3.13%.... it trades above 100K. A measly 3.13%.

+1
Reply

jfun
oaksacorn

Would take a LOT less than 3%. Your math is based on $1 representing $1 of market cap, straight division.. Market cap isn't linear like that, a fraction of that demand would do to make it trade at 100k ;)

Reply

oaksacorn
jfun

You are absolutely correct but I did not want to complicate things and just wanted to get the point across :-).

Reply

Maddie

Genius

+1
Reply

oaksacorn

:-). Look at some of the returns for privately held stocks in the past 15 years. They reflect the same types of returns projected in this count. So is it possible, yes. The structure is there in its current setting. 5000 is a realistic target if bitcoin does not really go semi mainstream. If the world's 12 million plus millionaires decide to put just 3.13% of their 55 trillion dollars of wealth into this asset class (bitcoin), 114k is the number given 15 million bitcoins in circulation. Remember also, that the dollar is soon going to enter a new fundamental regime of weakness. Is it possible? Um yeah.

+1
Reply

oaksacorn
oaksacorn

We have to remember that fundamentally, along with the above technical EW projection, that bitcoin is currently at chump change - the world really does not care levels.

Reply