I believe that the ascending bullish lows represent the notion that the underlying long term trend is consistent with the January-March trend, e.g. doubling every 30 days. This notion is unsustainable.
I believe that the descending bearish highs represent the bubble collapse. Bubble theory says that typical bubbles give back all their speculative gains.
Perhaps one month from the April 10 peak at $266 is long enough for the predominant trader sentiment to shift to the fact that the waves of new buyers are diminishing, causing demand to likewise diminish, causing prices to likewise diminish.
Sorry to dig up a slightly older post (posted earlier today, already 4 pages in o_O), but this is a pet peeve of mine:
No, the "January-March trend [...] doubling every 30 days" is not per se, as you say, "unsustainable". What you're doing there is repeating the worn-out mantra "exponential growth is not sustainable". Unless of course when it is,
either in finance, or
in nature[1].
What you probably should have said would have been something like: "a given exponential growth function, causally connected (however losely) to something of finite quantity, will eventually reach a point at which it drastically outgrows said finite quantity".
This is not just some empty semantic nitpicking. The difference in wording here amounts to the difference between lazy repetition of half-understood claims about the world, and a meaningful statement about the sustainability of growth.
Please note: I am not making any claims about the correctness of the January trendline. I just refuse to let a lazy statement like that slide by, that at face value claims that exponential growth is somehow an oddity, and its usage as a way to model reality ought to be rejected.
If you think that a particular exponential trend is not accurate, present your arguments (for fairness sake, in other threads you have been doing that. Sort of.). But the statement as it stands, in its unconditional form, is not fundamentally different from a perma-bull's battle cry "We'll inevitably reach 300k USD/btc next week". Both claims are devoid of information.
* * *
[1] A common rebuttal to the Apple case is "But now the price comes crashing down! So exponential growth is unsustainable after all". The fallacy here is of course that just because at a certain point exponential growth of a given magnitude must end, does not imply that up to that point the growth was not accurately described by a particular exponential function.
