Topic: Yet another analyst - page 3. (Read 10498 times)

I'm not convinced of that. The 2019 rally does not need to be considered impulsive, and I don't assume it is. Just because March 2020 was a higher low doesn't mean the preceding wave is an intermediate Wave (2). Complex corrections often complete with higher lows.

This is one of the things that has always bothered me about xxxx123abcxxxx's impulsive counts. I feel he often rushes Wave 4 counts, assuming a lower degree A or W wave is the entire Wave 4. Although there is no minimum time requirement for Wave 4, in my experience they strongly tends towards being longer than Wave 2, with ~2x by time being fairly common.

I believe it's more likely that the post-2017 bear market lasted 2+ years, and that our Historic IV just terminated in March 2020:



If it isn't clear, I am much, much, much more bullish than xxxx123abcxxxx. I believe we are still in Intermediate Wave (1) of Primary Wave [V].


As you can probably tell now, I'm talking about a nested count, so a Wave i of lower degree. Wave i of Minor 3, to be specific.

Anyway, this is all very speculative. Just offering one alternative. I am very confident in the bull market scenario to new ATHs, but it can unfold in several different ways. The true count will only be clear in hindsight.

Interested to see that count, as I'm not sure how we can be in anything other than some kind of 3 wave (iii of I or [ iii ] of [ I ] etc) if we believe we're in a bull that started just after it hit 3k in Dec '18. I see only one major correction (jun 19 to march 20) and therefore no room for a big impulsive I wave nearing completion at 20-22k?

For me it's either xxxx123bcxxxx's count if we're bullish (currently seems likely), or a king-of-all-fakeouts B wave in a giant nightmare multi year flat ABC, which would be invalidated upon breaching the ATH. The B wave looks possible because the formation since 3k could still be interpreted as a zig zag.

The upside is fairly unpredictable in a nested count like this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.55526746

And I do agree with xxxx123abcxxxx in general:


However, the internal count is unclear to me right now. I have some slight variations in mind. Where xxxx123abcxxxx thinks we're in a [ iii ], I wonder if we're really in a [ i ]. This would suggest a major top anywhere between here and maybe $22K. I say that partly because of structure and proportion, and partly because of psychological resistance at the 2017 ATH. Anything +/- 10% of the 2017 ATH would be typical. Never can tell if it'll overshoot or undershoot. After that, one would anticipate a (likely) sharp Wave [ ii ]. That may be where we see a classic 30-40% Bitcoin bull market decline, followed by acceleration of the bull trend. Probably the dip of a lifetime.

When profit?

An example of where great minds don't necessarily think alike.

I'm very ambivalent. On one hand, BTC's weekly chart looks incredibly strong and intent on continued advancement. On the other hand, it's sensible to give pause because we are at yearly resistance (the June 2019 highs) and the weekly upper BB, and the market has not convincingly broken above either one.

When the S&P 500 dipped 3.5% yesterday, BTC dipped 7%. So this is something we need to keep an eye on as well. The S&P 500 just failed into its September range and triggered a bearish BB squeeze on the daily chart. It's very possible this could decline further and drag BTC down with it, which would tip things in favor of Masterluc's scenario.

If you look back to late June and early July 2019, you'll see it can unfortunately take 2-3 weeks for a weekly reversal (or lack thereof) to become obvious.

@exstasie

What you think about David's Idea? David and Masterluc's are very different.

Stocks are looking drippy:



Still clinging to the BB basis for now but I'll be interested to see how today and tomorrow's candles print. BTC dipped alongside below $12,800 but nothing major yet. Time to pay attention though.....

Potential bearish divergence. Until we see a dump to confirm, those divergences are still just possibilities.

I do see potential MACD and RSI divergence on the 3-day and weekly charts. Bears need to come in relatively soon though for that 3-day divergence to hold. The current daily doji (hasn't printed yet) could be a reversal candle too, but we have no confirmation yet.

We're only 3 hours from the weekly close and for now, it's still a big fat green dildo. That doesn't exactly bode well for the bear case. If sellers wanted to try and paint the chart bearish, the time to do it is now.

Let's see how the daily and weekly candles close in a few hours.

And there is bearish divergence on 1D, 3D, and weekly RSI. I think this would be a good and healthy pullback

If this weekly candle closes up here, we can probably close the book on this triangle:



If it wicks back inside the range, it's possible we're still in an irregular Wave E, like so:


As noted there:


The Fear and Greed Index is in the 70s, approaching "extreme greed" but the market remains below yearly resistance. Given the hyper bullish sentiment in crypto, equities, commodities and the hyper bearish sentiment on the USD, and as long as BTC remains below the June 2019 high, I could definitely see that sharp pullback happening that Masterluc is talking about. Equities are still teetering at the lower end of their trading ranges and threatening to dip hard. If they do, I expect BTC will follow. That would keep our triangle scenario intact.

hahahaha

You cannot wish the BTC price direction (well maybe you can? as an exception to the general rule... hahahahaha). 

Instead, there would be an acknowledgement of where we have been and where we might be likely to go.

The sentiment has been pretty negative in the past 24 hours or so, but still we have not gotten back down to the $10,138 low from 10 days ago.  Bullish?  I wonder.

Sometimes we just have consolidation in a range, and no one really knows for sure which way the price is going to break (when it does), and at some point, the margin trading in stacking up on each side to help to cause some fuel for the opposite direction, but then now we have some potential disabling of Bitmex which may well affect some of the BTC price motivating dynamics in terms of price - including likely lesser profits from betting down (even though surely there are other financial "down-betting" vehicles, besides Bitmex, out there too).

One funny thing that sometimes happens would be a kind of disruption and taking advantage of some kind of strange event (such as the Bitmex disabling situation) that causes the market to react in the opposite direction... we saw that with silk road in late 2013 and we saw that with chinese freezing of their exchanges in late 2016.

Remember also the bitfinex "hackening" situation in August 2016... which may be more timely parallel in BTC's 4-year cycle (to the extent that such cycle exists).  That Bitfinex situation took a few months to resolve.. or at least to bring some clarity back to the BTC market.

Hmmm the Dude's always in favor for the green scenarios

Here is an update on our multi-year triangle:



Wave E should be a zig zag (orange) or contracting triangle (green).

Nice bullish spring off the $10,135 low a few days ago. If the market can get back in the $11,200+ range and hold for a while, then I would lean towards the green sideways scenario.

Bull trap it is!

Stock market bears finally made their move. Closed below the 50-day MA and now breaking below the lower daily BB:



Time for the S&P 500 to test 3,000? As for BTC, it's still inside the daily bands but that's a pretty obvious lower high failure at the $11,200 resistance:



In the mid term, I would be prepared for a run to the low $9,000s and perhaps a wick lower. A stop run to the 0.5 Fib is possible. It's really easy to underestimate both upside and downside in BTC.

Stock market bulls held the line at the 50-day MA. Very nice recovery:



As expected, that meant a recovery for BTC too. The bearish triangle mentioned a couple posts ago was clearly invalidated. Touching $10,950 doesn't exactly get us out of the woods though. I still have a nagging suspicion there will be another leg down in stocks, and as we speak the S&P500 is hovering below its 20-day MA, pretty typical resistance level. Until BTC is trading back above $11,200 or so in its old trading range (trapping the last 2 weeks worth of bears) I would be prepared for this to be a bull trap.

To me the situation of transparency or not is not a futile set of happenings.

Like I mentioned, some of them (such as governments and public companies) have reporting requirements - otherwise they are going to get themselves in a pickle if they do not report what they are doing.  Sure, even if they have reporting requirements sometimes they still might be a bit coy about what they are doing or they may skirt such reporting requirements to the extent that they believe that they are able to get away with NOT reporting - or perceived loopholes.

Other entities may not feel that it is necessary to report, but still they might choose to disclose some of their holdings and practices in general ways or to make public some of their involvement in bitcoin.

The various aspects of incomplete information is not a problem in my mind, because the world tends to work like that.  We do not always have complete information - unless certain events happen that trigger publication of information, and of course, there are a lot of ways to utilize a combination of the information that we have.. the direct information and the inferences in order to attempt to make reasonable conjecturing about what is going on in the world, rather than throwing up our hands and proclaiming that we are never going to know exactly, so why try figuring it out? 

Part of my point in my earlier post is to postulate a belief that relatively speaking NOT a whole hell of a lot of institutional players are in bitcoin, and I am making those kinds of assertions based on incomplete information and speculation. I believe that my speculations are reasonable, and I will hold them or tweak them until there is further direct or inferential information that causes me some need to tweak my assertions in another direction.



Personally, I am still not going to get involved in that kind of shitcoinery crap even if I believe that there are reasonable chances that some of them are going to pump here and there for a long time.  I personally believe that bitcoin is an investment that serves a lot of my own personal needs to hedge against dollar based investments, and a lot of the performance of shitcoins is correlated to bitcoin, yet the shitcoins add various kinds of additional risk. 

So that already existing correlation causes no necessity to diversify into shitcoins, in my personal thinking, to make any stake in shitcoins..... and the additional risk is that the shitcoins can just go to zero at any time because they have a whole lot of areas of additional vulnerabilities, and I will leave those matters to the snot-nosed 14-year olds to figure out... which ones are going to pump, which are not and for how long... They may get lucky, and they may not.

Personally, I believe that we are still in very damned early stages of institutional investments into bitcoin.

Sure we already have had some institutional investors entering into the BTC space, and like you suggest, some of these investments into BTC are likely "on the sly," but still I doubt that BTC is really experiencing anything close to large scale institutional investing into it, and that would include some government entities taking some kind of position into bitcoin too. 
[/quote]

The problem is it's going to be very hard to prove or track this "institutional Bitcoin" -- they're mostly held in custodial wallets, mainly done OTC, and mainly happen off-chain. I simply don't see them keeping stuff on their own wallets or addresses, nor even making actual transactions on chain when they're trading or moving, they're simply doing everything third party. In fact, with second-layer now, even more difficult to see, my suspicion is LN channels some day just moving between institutionals and perhaps closing it all off to show one big transaction hiding thousands between institutionals. So we'll never really know.

...the smoke and mirror show were to be able to be continued for a decently long ass time.
[/quote]

Certainly far longer than I'll be alive, probably. And for a lot of investors, that's more than enough time to ride on that correlation. I agree, none of that is sustainable but for shitcoins like ETH, to even be at $100 when they were $3 4 years ago or so... they'll not care they couldn't hold on to $1400.

Those are not facts that I am denying.  Those are conclusions from facts, including that you believe that magnitude needs to be accounted for in order to figure out what is correlated or not.  We disagree about the definition of correlation and whether magnitude needs to be accounted.  We do not disagree about how much the price of certain assets may have moved... at least, not so far.

Facts would be calculating how far BTC moved in comparison to stocks or gold or some things like that. not definitional matters or even how much weight to give to certain factors, which are kinds of disagreements about logic - not facts.. at least, so far, as far as I can see.



How it reaches the numbers.  But of course, if it is refusing to account for magnitude and only looking at direction, then I could give less than two shits about the numbers that it pumps out.  I gave you charts of 6 years and 9 years that were from the DCABTC website and those clearly show magnitudes of performance that differ greatly between bitcoin, gold and stocks.  That is way the hell more convincing than looking at some baloney website that eliminates one of the important factors (such as magnitude) and then comes to directional conclusions that hardly mean shit in the whole scheme of things. You going to long term invest based on such nonsense?  Hopefully not.


Exactly.  I believe that I provided you enough evidence and argument to prove my points, and you have provided your side.  We do not need to keep going on about this since we each have provided our case and made our points.


We do not agree.  So let's move on...if possible.


Again, I think that I have provided enough information and evidence.  I don't feel any need to study the matter further or even to discuss further.  You are not raising any new points or even undermining points that I already made, from my perspective.


Well, if you believe that BTC's price is going to correct then you sell all or a large portion of your BTC and you bet on the direction of your beliefs, don't you?  So instead of being able to profit from BTC going from $10k to $1million, you sell most or all of your BTC at $87k because you believe that BTC is not going to be able to go above $100k because it is correlated to the movements of stocks, gold or whatever other correlations you believe exist.


Great. If you do not plan to sell all or most of your BTC because you believe that BTC is going to correct, then maybe you will not end up under investing in BTC and maybe you will not end up missing out on the likely upwards BTC price moves that we are going to end up having soon^tm.


I don't see any difference between calling something a "possibility" or calling it a "probability."  Those are largely the same ideas that are just a matter of differing semantical weight.


I am not proclaiming that asset correlation is not important; it is a matter of how much weight to give to such information and whether it causes you to come to differing conclusions regarding where you might be and where you might be going and how much to invest or allocate in accordance with those assignments of probabilities.  We are not going to come to the same conclusions and sometimes we might not even give the same weight to certain factors as can already be seen by our recent back and forth on this subject matter.

Surely some times we are going to find that people make bets based on feelings or intangibles, but none of us has really mentioned anything like crystal balls in terms of relevancy.. even though some people will sometimes consult with those kinds of tools if they are uncertain about one direction or another.. at least so far we have not devolved into crystal balls - even though it seems to me that your expressed desires to denigrate the importance of magnitude is going to lead to weird ass conclusions.. at least from my understanding of what you seem to be saying in that direction.




I doubt that they are as rigid that you are making them out to be or that you are trying to suggest that I am granting them that level of rigidity. 

Let's say that there is no BTC price run in the upcoming 2 years, and instead it seems to get drug out another 4 years or longer.  I am NOT sure at what point that the 4 year fractal would become invalidated, but surely as I type, the four year fractal is not invalidated, so it does not seem silly to give it some weight, and my already mentioning the three models together should already have established that I am not focusing on any one of those models, and I am also open to some other information that might be more convincing or to shed light on the models in a different way.. so far we do not have anything that is more convincing than the three models that I already mentioned... You can poo poo them all that you want.  I am not overly relying upon those models to come true, either, so perhaps we can agree to disagree regarding how much weight to give them or if there might be some better information out there, then probably you would need to say that because I don't really see anything so far, even though you are saying that they might not be true, which is a BIG so what... They are true until they are not, and it is not silly to have some kind of guidance rather than proclaiming or believing that anything can happen because "reasons" and not saying what those vague "reasons" might be.. beyond proclaiming correlation (which again I consider to be baloney and inferior to the models that I outlined in terms of actual "reasons").


Frequently, i have found your analysis to be helpful and insightful, so we could largely be arguing about semantics and the use of the term correlation and the weight of the various BTC price models.. I don't know, and I doubt that it really needs a whole lot more explanation because it seems that we have batted this topic back and forth enough, no? 

We aren't really getting anywhere in some of the last couple of posts, are we?  Maybe we clarified a few points, perhaps?  but seems that we are largely starting to just get repetitive, no?

You denied a long term correlation exists. This is a matter of fact.


What doesn't make sense about it?


Visually, and using any asset correlation calculator I have ever found, BTC and the stock market are obviously very closely correlated. Both long term and short term. If you can show me any actual evidence otherwise, feel free, but you're not providing any evidence whatsoever. You will not convince me in this manner. We can agree to disagree.


Asset correlation is an established idea with rigid definitions. It is based on dependency between two assets. It has nothing to do with magnitude. These matters are orthogonal. You keep introducing an irrelevant idea about magnitude to say I am wrong about correlation, or to say this is just a difference of opinion. It is actually a matter of fact.


Why does any of that matter? It certainly doesn't prove any of the price prediction theories discussed earlier (10 years of price data could never begin to do that) nor does it suggest a correlation does not exist between stocks and BTC.


How does acknowledging the correlation exists and saying I will continue to observe it = selling BTC too soon?

I've said over and over that correlations inform price direction, not magnitude. Just because I think the stock market and BTC are both going up doesn't mean I plan to sell BTC as low as possible!


The models tell me what might happen in the future. I can gauge their value as more price action comes in over time, confirming or invalidating them. Like Elliott Wave counts, they are in the back of my mind as possibilities, not so much as probabilities or things I can plan on.

The actual price history, including asset correlations, is a lot more valuable to me because it informs me about price direction on multiple important time frames in the here and now, rather than just giving me a vague "BTC is going to the moon because time or stock-to-flow or crystal balls."


On a short enough time line, any cherry picked, curve fitting analysis can seem valid. What matters is the long run. That's why I say this very, very small amount of statistical data we have is insufficient to put much weight into these predictive theories.

Stock-to-flow and the 4-year cycle are both extremely rigid, and would be invalidated next year if BTC doesn't have another parabolic bubble in time. Possible sure, but it seems rather silly to focus on them.


Why?

Just because I talked about asset correlation doesn't mean I'm oblivious to matters of magnitude. I'm one of the few people around here who actually expect BTC to trade in the millions USD. Most people can barely wrap their head around six figures.

It just has nothing to do with the analysis of asset correlation, which is important because it helps determine or confirm price direction, vital matters for any technical trader.

Personally, I believe that we are still in very damned early stages of institutional investments into bitcoin.

Sure we already have had some institutional investors entering into the BTC space, and like you suggest, some of these investments into BTC are likely "on the sly," but still I doubt that BTC is really experiencing anything close to large scale institutional investing into it, and that would include some government entities taking some kind of position into bitcoin too. 

Maybe governments (to the extent to which they decide to take some kind of stake in BTC, mining or HODLing) would also have to engage in their BTC investing on the side - and who the hell knows exactly how governments are going to ensure that their keys are securely held - some dictators might put a lot of power in individuals to hold keys, but there are likely going to be custodian institutions that are created around securitizing keys for BIG players   such as governments that are supposed to be publicly accountable or even institutions that sometimes are supposed to be publicly accountable too (to their share holders when they are a certain kind of company) that feel that they cannot put BTC keys too much in the hands of single players.

Anyhow, my point still remains that the involvement of institutions in bitcoin has to be pretty damned small potatoes at this point (and historically), even if you, buwaytress, suspect that some of them might have been getting into bitcoin on the sly, it is still likely small potatoes, otherwise we would almost have to have been seeing some of the effects of BIGGER players on the BTC price if they had actually already been entering into the BTC space in any kind of meaningful way on the side (which I really don't believe has happened, so far - even if they had been trying to be secret about their entrance into BTC, I just believe that we do not see any evidence, even indirectly of such material and meaningful entrances of BIGGER institutional players into the BTC space, so far).



I understand what you are saying, buwaytress, regarding shitcoins having lower liquidity and therefore able to pump more or to dump more, but personally, I doubt that it is very accurate to try to suggest that they are always going to do this.  So sure, we are likely going to witness some short term correlation periods, but almost every single one of them are pure shit, so it is likely NOT very healthy to attempt to compare them to bitcoin, as if they were some kind of lesser bitcoin.  In other words, we might witness various kinds of short term correlation between bitcoin and various shitcoins, until we don't.  For example, how long can ethereum keep up its charade of purportedly moving to ETH 2.0, which is also a likely sham system.  Sure they will continue to present the nonsense and various aspects of the public will keep buying into their paper claim smoke and mirrors nonsense as long as it is still pumpening.. but there is no there there.. even though it is possible that they could pump that nonsense for another 20 years, and if they do that and even if they continue to largely correlate that baloney with bitcoin, I doubt that would really be meaningful correlation, even though the smoke and mirror show were to be able to be continued for a decently long ass time.