Chainlink $1,000+ and Exponential Regression in Cryptocurrencies
I scaled the charts to about the same magnitude growth for each first first cycle. Left one is LINK. Middle one is ETH. Right one is BTC
Without going into any FA this time.. other than saying again that Chainlink is THE big thing of this cycle, Chainlink was the best performer since last speculative bubble peak out of the top 500 cryptos and that it will continue to be the best performer in the current cycle till next speculative bubble peak (somewhere from mid 2021 to late 2022).
Decentralized Oracles with smart contract computation functionality bringing the biggest network effect and value capture crypto has seen since ETH.
I was very vocal about my price target for Chainlink since back in the day, early 2018 and was probably the first that made the $1000+ tag as serious price prediction instead of repeating the meme.
I wanted to visualize one very simple reason/theory why. Apart from fundamental reasons and 'real/fair' valuation models (which simply don't fucking exist in crypto yet) or how much money really flows into crypto (which still doesn't let you make any real assumptions). My approach here is simple, extrapolated af but perhaps pretty accurate.
My theory is: Every crypto that is actually the next big thing and big leap in tech, will have about the same magnitude of gains in it's first bull cycle.
With every following cycle, this crypto will grow by 80% less than the previous cycle and about the same as it's previous 'next big thing crypto' did.
Starting with Bitcoin, which has the most unclear bottom/starting price since it was the first crypto and no proper exchanges exists. First proper trading started somewhere mid 2010 at around a price level of $0.01. Going from that, it rose 320,000% to it's first cycle peak at $32.
Gains were absolutely ridiculous and nothing close to that really existed before. People were memeing/talking about "Bitcoin may be worth more than $1 at some point in the future". Exponential growth is, as always, unfathomable by humans. People thought they were to late to invest in this. Marketcap was "too high". I just don't have a clue what the fuck "too high" even means. After all, this is completely new tech. A whole global network of trustless decentralized money. Who the fuck says what is too high of a valuation here?
Next cycle leads to 60,000% increase and a peak price of $1,000. This is about 80% less percentage-wise gains than the first cycle. Remember this number, it's important. Fast forward, the same shit repeats again. People screaming too high valuation, miss out, bearmarket comes in.
Next cycle comes up and 9,400% gains are made. Again, everyone buffled at the gains. Everyone made price predictions that look realistic on a linear scale and ignore the logarithmic rise and pattern we had before. Whats interesting here is the fact that the next.. third run had again... 80% less gains percentage-wise than the previous one. Interesting.
Lets go to Ethereum. My theory here again, is that the next big thing.. call it what you want.. it has a lot of different meme names.. global supercomputer, programmable money network.. whatever.. is going to have about the same magnitude of percentage-wise rise than the previous thing, Bitcoin. Smart contracts open up such massive potential that every 'expert' even nowadays has no clue of whats yet to come. In my opinion we haven't seen shit.. even tho we have seen a lot of shit.
And now see how much it rose in it's first cycle.. 350,000%. Interesting. Ridiculously close to what Bitcoin did. Coincidence or pattern? This same magnitude of gains happened to be for the best performing cryptocurrency only. Ethereum was best performer at the start of the cycle and till the end. It's massive run didn't stop just because it had a high ranking on coinmarketcap. After it reached top 2 cryptocurrency ranking, it still one-hundred-folded again. So fuck you for saying your "too high".
Following Ethereum predictions (that are again, always plotted on linear charts and thus, way too low), Ethereum would "perhaps" reach $2000-$5000.. these are actually the numbers I see most (in regards of bullish predictions.. there are also a ton of people saying it won't reach ATH ever again lol) and and it's kind of a joke prediction lol.
Following my theory, Ethereum will gain another 60,000% from bottom to peak speculative bubble (this cycle). Peak price somewhere around $30,000-40,000 dollar. That is the 'ridiculous' number you get when applying a non-linear-scale-biased pattern. People always underestimate exponential gains. No matter if it happened over and over again. The next prediction and the next cycle, they always spit out a way too low number that sounds realisitc and looks realistic on a linear scale. It never mattered how 'big' the valuation/marketcap already was. People thought at 1$ per Bitcoin it was ridiculously high. There are literally comments saying "Bitcoin can't be worth more than the United Stated Dollar" lol.
1 million dollawr cap was the next 'ridiculous' milestone.. no one even dreamed of 100m cap for BTC and here we are, already almost reaching half a trillion for BTC alone.
Who really thinks the next cycle will suddenly only double the marketcap? There would have to be a black swan event for that.. Marketcap is a meme anyway. Not because Inflation and ridiculous growth we see at stocks too. But because of the tiny ass volume cryptos have. Marketcap metric alone doesn't mean jackshit. You need volume incorporated into that calculation/metric. A 1 trillion cap with average volume of 1bn a week is a completely different thing than 1 trillion cap and 100bn volume a week. You need much more money to bring up/down the price. In crypto you have realized cap for example, which gives a much clearer picture. But comparing global blockchain networks to companies and saying this like "1 trillion cap is too high" is dumbfuck shit. I would say... if we ignore the fact that you can't fucking compare a publicly listed companies marketcap to a blockchain networks marketcap.. then we still have about a tenfold or onehundredfold less 'active/realized' marketcap in crypto compared to stocks. Simply because of the trading volume. So a 1 trillion cap crypto behaves like 100bn or 10bn cap stock or lets say, had only so much money inflow than a 100bn or 10bn cap stock.
Maybe some proper analysis about this will be done in the future.
Enough rant. Lets go next.
It's no surprise to me that Chainlink has hit $20 by now but many marines, even OGs seem to be.
Many cashed out or diversified into new low cap shit "because Chainlink already had *the* massive run".
Bullshit. Fundamentals aside again (I have more than enough FA reasons to think Chainlink will be $1000 and continues to be best performer but lets just go by TA today).
Chainlink was and is still best performing crypto on the market. We still see Chainlink going up AGAINST the market trend. When everything stagnates or even goes down, Chainlink has a green day. This happens on the regular basis and is one of the indicators that Chainlink is still *the one*. Thats simply how you can identify it.
Now, by my theory of exponential regression and the first cycle of each new big thing.. Chainlink would see a total gain of ABOUT the magnitue ETH and BTC had in their first cycle. 300-350k something around that. So lets plot that thing on a chart and put ETH and BTC chart next to it to see.
Bottom (close) for Chainlink on the most liquid exchange and pair was around 30 cents. Applying 340,000% upside here brings us to...$1270.. pretty fucking close to my 2018 prediction of $1500 per LINK (which is based on similar theories but much more on logarithmic regression on BTC, longterm market dominance trend for btc and alts and a projection of marketshare for LINK). Cool to see that the theory coincides with the old prediction. So by this theory we would see Chainlink peaking above $1000 in this cycle and right now at $20 peak from last week, we have seen "the middle" of the run. Don't think linear. Think logarithmic. Middle is not $500, it's about $24. Apply the same % gains since 30 cents to today, and you have your $20 LINK at over $1000. To me this is more or less confirmation of the 1000$. We are at the beginning of the bullrun, in the middle of the first altseason and Chainlink reached (percentage-rise-wise) the middle of the run to 1000$ already. We have 1-2 years to go.. we have this first altseason yet to end and we have atleast another altseason coming up (probably around the time Bitcoin reaches ATH). How in the heck won't Chainlink gain atleast another x10 from here? Yet people don't believe it will tenfold again.
Whats also interesting to me is that on monthly chart, both BTC and ETH monthly RSI has hit around 96 RSI way before the peak was close. At around 3/4 of the run. That would be one milestone to watch on the LINK chart. RSI way above 90 indicating that the peak is at least close.
Every stock and crypto.. heck even a fuck ton in nature grows exponential and people still don't grasp it.
Tesla at $1000 grows to $2000 at the same pace as from $50 to $100. Online communites or lets use PewDiePie's subs for example go from 50m to 100m the same pace/time than from 1m to 2m. Ditch your linear charts and try learning to 'see' log. $1000 per LINK is happening. And this won't take +10 years. We gonna see this in 1-2 years max. Your side-shitcoins won't outperform LINK over longer periods. Weeks or a few months at max. Good luck timing that shit.
Summary:
New/different theory I haven't talked about much yet. Exponential regression and same-magnitude-run for 'the-new-big-thing-crypto'.. BTC first, ETH then, next LINK.
I predict Ethereum to hit $30,000-$40,000 by cycle peak in 1-2 years from today.
I predict Chainlink to hit $1000 by cycle peak in 1-2 years from today.
BTC would rise 'only' +1,700% following this theory. Peak price around $60,000
Without going into any FA this time.. other than saying again that Chainlink is THE big thing of this cycle, Chainlink was the best performer since last speculative bubble peak out of the top 500 cryptos and that it will continue to be the best performer in the current cycle till next speculative bubble peak (somewhere from mid 2021 to late 2022).
Decentralized Oracles with smart contract computation functionality bringing the biggest network effect and value capture crypto has seen since ETH.
I was very vocal about my price target for Chainlink since back in the day, early 2018 and was probably the first that made the $1000+ tag as serious price prediction instead of repeating the meme.
I wanted to visualize one very simple reason/theory why. Apart from fundamental reasons and 'real/fair' valuation models (which simply don't fucking exist in crypto yet) or how much money really flows into crypto (which still doesn't let you make any real assumptions). My approach here is simple, extrapolated af but perhaps pretty accurate.
My theory is: Every crypto that is actually the next big thing and big leap in tech, will have about the same magnitude of gains in it's first bull cycle.
With every following cycle, this crypto will grow by 80% less than the previous cycle and about the same as it's previous 'next big thing crypto' did.
Starting with Bitcoin, which has the most unclear bottom/starting price since it was the first crypto and no proper exchanges exists. First proper trading started somewhere mid 2010 at around a price level of $0.01. Going from that, it rose 320,000% to it's first cycle peak at $32.
Gains were absolutely ridiculous and nothing close to that really existed before. People were memeing/talking about "Bitcoin may be worth more than $1 at some point in the future". Exponential growth is, as always, unfathomable by humans. People thought they were to late to invest in this. Marketcap was "too high". I just don't have a clue what the fuck "too high" even means. After all, this is completely new tech. A whole global network of trustless decentralized money. Who the fuck says what is too high of a valuation here?
Next cycle leads to 60,000% increase and a peak price of $1,000. This is about 80% less percentage-wise gains than the first cycle. Remember this number, it's important. Fast forward, the same shit repeats again. People screaming too high valuation, miss out, bearmarket comes in.
Next cycle comes up and 9,400% gains are made. Again, everyone buffled at the gains. Everyone made price predictions that look realistic on a linear scale and ignore the logarithmic rise and pattern we had before. Whats interesting here is the fact that the next.. third run had again... 80% less gains percentage-wise than the previous one. Interesting.
Lets go to Ethereum. My theory here again, is that the next big thing.. call it what you want.. it has a lot of different meme names.. global supercomputer, programmable money network.. whatever.. is going to have about the same magnitude of percentage-wise rise than the previous thing, Bitcoin. Smart contracts open up such massive potential that every 'expert' even nowadays has no clue of whats yet to come. In my opinion we haven't seen shit.. even tho we have seen a lot of shit.
And now see how much it rose in it's first cycle.. 350,000%. Interesting. Ridiculously close to what Bitcoin did. Coincidence or pattern? This same magnitude of gains happened to be for the best performing cryptocurrency only. Ethereum was best performer at the start of the cycle and till the end. It's massive run didn't stop just because it had a high ranking on coinmarketcap. After it reached top 2 cryptocurrency ranking, it still one-hundred-folded again. So fuck you for saying your "too high".
Following Ethereum predictions (that are again, always plotted on linear charts and thus, way too low), Ethereum would "perhaps" reach $2000-$5000.. these are actually the numbers I see most (in regards of bullish predictions.. there are also a ton of people saying it won't reach ATH ever again lol) and and it's kind of a joke prediction lol.
Following my theory, Ethereum will gain another 60,000% from bottom to peak speculative bubble (this cycle). Peak price somewhere around $30,000-40,000 dollar. That is the 'ridiculous' number you get when applying a non-linear-scale-biased pattern. People always underestimate exponential gains. No matter if it happened over and over again. The next prediction and the next cycle, they always spit out a way too low number that sounds realisitc and looks realistic on a linear scale. It never mattered how 'big' the valuation/marketcap already was. People thought at 1$ per Bitcoin it was ridiculously high. There are literally comments saying "Bitcoin can't be worth more than the United Stated Dollar" lol.
1 million dollawr cap was the next 'ridiculous' milestone.. no one even dreamed of 100m cap for BTC and here we are, already almost reaching half a trillion for BTC alone.
Who really thinks the next cycle will suddenly only double the marketcap? There would have to be a black swan event for that.. Marketcap is a meme anyway. Not because Inflation and ridiculous growth we see at stocks too. But because of the tiny ass volume cryptos have. Marketcap metric alone doesn't mean jackshit. You need volume incorporated into that calculation/metric. A 1 trillion cap with average volume of 1bn a week is a completely different thing than 1 trillion cap and 100bn volume a week. You need much more money to bring up/down the price. In crypto you have realized cap for example, which gives a much clearer picture. But comparing global blockchain networks to companies and saying this like "1 trillion cap is too high" is dumbfuck shit. I would say... if we ignore the fact that you can't fucking compare a publicly listed companies marketcap to a blockchain networks marketcap.. then we still have about a tenfold or onehundredfold less 'active/realized' marketcap in crypto compared to stocks. Simply because of the trading volume. So a 1 trillion cap crypto behaves like 100bn or 10bn cap stock or lets say, had only so much money inflow than a 100bn or 10bn cap stock.
Maybe some proper analysis about this will be done in the future.
Enough rant. Lets go next.
It's no surprise to me that Chainlink has hit $20 by now but many marines, even OGs seem to be.
Many cashed out or diversified into new low cap shit "because Chainlink already had *the* massive run".
Bullshit. Fundamentals aside again (I have more than enough FA reasons to think Chainlink will be $1000 and continues to be best performer but lets just go by TA today).
Chainlink was and is still best performing crypto on the market. We still see Chainlink going up AGAINST the market trend. When everything stagnates or even goes down, Chainlink has a green day. This happens on the regular basis and is one of the indicators that Chainlink is still *the one*. Thats simply how you can identify it.
Now, by my theory of exponential regression and the first cycle of each new big thing.. Chainlink would see a total gain of ABOUT the magnitue ETH and BTC had in their first cycle. 300-350k something around that. So lets plot that thing on a chart and put ETH and BTC chart next to it to see.
Bottom (close) for Chainlink on the most liquid exchange and pair was around 30 cents. Applying 340,000% upside here brings us to...$1270.. pretty fucking close to my 2018 prediction of $1500 per LINK (which is based on similar theories but much more on logarithmic regression on BTC, longterm market dominance trend for btc and alts and a projection of marketshare for LINK). Cool to see that the theory coincides with the old prediction. So by this theory we would see Chainlink peaking above $1000 in this cycle and right now at $20 peak from last week, we have seen "the middle" of the run. Don't think linear. Think logarithmic. Middle is not $500, it's about $24. Apply the same % gains since 30 cents to today, and you have your $20 LINK at over $1000. To me this is more or less confirmation of the 1000$. We are at the beginning of the bullrun, in the middle of the first altseason and Chainlink reached (percentage-rise-wise) the middle of the run to 1000$ already. We have 1-2 years to go.. we have this first altseason yet to end and we have atleast another altseason coming up (probably around the time Bitcoin reaches ATH). How in the heck won't Chainlink gain atleast another x10 from here? Yet people don't believe it will tenfold again.
Whats also interesting to me is that on monthly chart, both BTC and ETH monthly RSI has hit around 96 RSI way before the peak was close. At around 3/4 of the run. That would be one milestone to watch on the LINK chart. RSI way above 90 indicating that the peak is at least close.
Every stock and crypto.. heck even a fuck ton in nature grows exponential and people still don't grasp it.
Tesla at $1000 grows to $2000 at the same pace as from $50 to $100. Online communites or lets use PewDiePie's subs for example go from 50m to 100m the same pace/time than from 1m to 2m. Ditch your linear charts and try learning to 'see' log. $1000 per LINK is happening. And this won't take +10 years. We gonna see this in 1-2 years max. Your side-shitcoins won't outperform LINK over longer periods. Weeks or a few months at max. Good luck timing that shit.
Summary:
New/different theory I haven't talked about much yet. Exponential regression and same-magnitude-run for 'the-new-big-thing-crypto'.. BTC first, ETH then, next LINK.
I predict Ethereum to hit $30,000-$40,000 by cycle peak in 1-2 years from today.
I predict Chainlink to hit $1000 by cycle peak in 1-2 years from today.
BTC would rise 'only' +1,700% following this theory. Peak price around $60,000
