Based on the severity of this pull back It seems like the breakout for TRX has failed, and based on the macro environment the probabilities are mounting we may briefly see new lows this year before pushing towards all time highs. This seems to be coinciding with a crash in the US banking system, which will eventually lead to a fast response by the Fed to turn the printers back on to save the banks and prop up asset prices. At first TRX could get a quick drop to 3.3 cents as asset prices depress almost across the board. Following the inevitable Fed intervention, TRX and most cryptos should push towards new all time highs. At a minimum TRX should go to over 60 cents in the following year as the money printers get turned back on again.
The very recent collapse of multiple banks in the US could lead to system wide contagion in the US banking system that will only be stopped by massive intervention and money printing by the Fed. A systemic bank run could lead to a dollar liquidity crisis and temporary demand spike for dollars as depositors can no longer get their dollars out of banks and will need to sell off other assets to pay their bills, this selling will continue up until the central bank is able to effectively deal with the situation and extinguish the fire by throwing freshly printed money on it.
The Fed typically keeps tightening until they 'break something,' and things are definitely starting to break now.
Trade closed: stop reached
⋅
Trade active
⋅
With the SEC attacking TRX and Justin Sun, it seems as though TRX could underperform for some time, similar to how XRP underperformed after they were attacked by regulators.
A move to 3.3 cents is still in the cards here. Possibly a positive outcome for the Ripple v SEC case could lead to needed regulatory clarity that allows TRX to move back into a state of overperforming, despite the open SEC case. Opening of exchanges in Hong Kong could also lead to TRX over performing as well, but this likely isn't going to happen until the 2nd half of the year.
Comment
⋅
While a symmetrical is still technically possible, which would imply a fast wave down and then a bull market right after, like this old chart from March 11th shows. What is more likely based on the rule of reverse logic, and because of the lack of price similarity that would be expected in a symmetrical, it is most likely that we have formed into an x-wave, and are only about half way through with this bear market.
What's the matter with you? In the meantime, when you say Tron will go up, it's down and now it says the opposite. What will happen now?
Intuit
⋅
@goyujane Its incredible that tradingview does not have a way to block trolls who post useless comments. I may choose to stop posting on this website soon. It's unfortunate for the people who are smart enough to understand my content that the ungrateful trolls have to ruin it for everyone.
goyujane
⋅
@Intuit, I'm an ungrateful troll? Nah~ I've been a big fan of yours for the past three years. I said your analysis was perfect and you liked it. Of course, I said it so easily that you were angry, but if I explain it in detail, you'll tell me to unfollow, right?
Intuit
⋅
@goyujane, When you say things that are factually inaccurate like "when you say Tron will go up, it's down" it's hard not to assume you are troll. Maybe you're just intellectually challenged and unable to see that 6.6 cents is ~20% higher than 5.5 cents, which is when I last said to long TRX. Either way I have no interest in interacting with people who are toxic and unable to provide constructive criticism, or are simply unable to understand that targets are soft and change with new information, and that no trader is going to be 100% correct about everything they say.
etcopo
⋅
I’m never sure if you’re actually following technical principles in chart reading, or if you’re taking emotion from headlines and force fitting it into charts.
The whole point of TA is letting the chart speak for itself.
Headlines are meant to manipulate emotion.
Intuit
⋅
@etcopo, I simply present information. You should draw your own conclusions.
etcopo
⋅
@Intuit my question was related to the basis of your analysis approach.
Are you actually doing TA or are you taking emotional reactions to headlines and overlaying TA on top of it, defeating the purpose of TA?
“I simply present information” - that’s not true. Simply presenting information would be following TA principles, seems more like you’re presenting subjective emotional reactions to headline news.
Intuit
⋅
@etcopo, Macroeconomic and regulatory information is just another form of information, like technical information. You may not like it or understand it, or you may not like the conclusions that I draw because it doesn't agree with your bias, so I recommend then that you draw your own conclusions based on the information that you think is important.
In this specific case, regulatory information has an objective affect on the market. Delistings and uncertainty will prevent new money coming in, objectively, and without new money coming in then price will not likely go up. There's also historical precedent for this as I mentioned in my post.
As far as wave analysis or technical analysis, I do all of that analysis based on its own merits. When I draw my conclusions I take all the individual pieces, technical, fundamental, regulatory, macroeconomic, sentimental, and wave analysis, and piece them together to create a more complete picture and use that to draw conclusions. The more parts agree with each other, the stronger my confidence is.
etcopo
⋅
@Intuit I’m scanning through your past couple years of ‘predictions.’ All I can see is a reaction to news headlines and fear. July 2022 Ethereum getting nuked gonna go to $100. Nothing remotely close to that happened.
No one expects you to be spot on. But time and again you’re not even directionally accurate.
And you never own up to it. Then have the nerve to call someone biased for questioning your methodology.
You seem to be getting ping ponged around by corporate news headlines.
I’m just trying to help you break free and become more objective in your analysis but you seem to be comfortable with your consistently terrible predictions.
I would have a lot more trust in you if you openly discussed the failed predictions, hindsight analysis of ‘here is what I missed or failed to consider’ is a very healthy and important part of making predictions.
It is hard to trust someone he is not reflective. We all watch you keep repeating the same failed outlandish predictions.