[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
File: 18 KB, 748x242, Bitcoin's X-ing ability May 2021.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
57748221 No.57748221 [Reply] [Original]

Wrote this Feb 20th but didn't post it and then sort of forgot to. Posting this now, in case BTC tops soon (near current price) as it'd be very interesting if we fairly accurately forecasted such a top back in May 2021.

Part 1 of 2:

Reminder that as far back as May 2021, we predicted BTC not hitting ATH again after bottoming. Most of you have probably forgotten.

Picrel – a super interesting and profound insight – was the first of many posts dealing with this issue, using these numbers: https://archive.is/0hrT9 (note "20 Feb" – like I said, meant to post this that day)

That archive link pic (the one used in the May 2021 post) was based on the April $64.8k top, which we back then assumed was THE top (we didn't predict the bullshit pump that occurred towards $69k, that began at about the same time a certain e-celeb added the BTC logo to his twatter account). Hence "120 / 20" – the "20" being the X-ing BTC did from 2018 bottom to $64840. Since the three instances of loss of "X-ing ability" or "mooning strength" was "5.3", "5" and "6", an estimate of a "5.5" was used which produced "20 / 3.63" so in other words an X-ing of 3.63 from the future bottom.

If we apply an 3.63 X-ing to 15.5k we get 56.265 which means BTC could pump to $56k from 15.5k. However "3.63" was based on the top being $64.8k, not $69k. Since we now know BTC reached $69k, we can recalculate that May 2021 projection to be a bit more accurate. It doesn't need to be super accurate, and the "5.5" loss in "mooning strength" or "X-ing ability" is just an estimate anyway (the loss could be 5 or 6 this time around; 5.5 is in the middle), but this will get us a more accurate result.

If we use "21" instead of "20", as that's closer to the X-ing from the 2018 bottom to the $69k top than a "20" X-ing, then we get a new X-ing number of 3.82 instead of the old 3.63 from May 2021 (because 21 divided by 5.5 = 3.82). And so we apply a 3.82 X-ing to 15.5k. This gives us 59.21. So $59210. So, still no new ATH.

>> No.57748227
File: 59 KB, 655x527, 1693700072080060.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
57748227

>>57748221
Part 2 of 2:

That's of course using the estimation that the loss in BTC's "mooning strength" or "X-ing ability" this time around is 5.5, which is an estimate based on the previous times when BTC's loss was "5.3", "5", and "6" in chronological order. If this time around the loss is 6 (the highest which has occurred so far), then using 21 we get 3.5 and applying a 3.5 X-ing to 15.5k gives us 54.25. So $54250. If this time around the loss is 5 (the lowest which has occurred so far), then using 21 we get 4.2 and applying a 4.2 X-ing to 15.5k gives us 65.1. So $65100.

However to get a fairer and more honest middle estimate (the 5.5 number), the "120 / 20" aspect (of the May 2021 calculation) should also be recalculated using 21. Using 21 we get 5.714 instead of 6. This means the range is 5 to 5.714, not 5 to 6. The middle between 5 and 5.714 is 5.357. Recalculating again using "5.357" (instead of 5.5) from 21, instead of 3.82 we get 3.92. Applying a 3.92 X-ing to 15.5k gives us 60.76 as opposed to 59.21. So $60760 instead of $59210. If this time around the loss in "mooning strength" or "X-ing ability" is the exact same as the previous time, that is a "5.714" loss from 21, then we get the number 3.675. Applying 3.675 to 15.5k gives us 56.9625. So $57k. As you can see, the differences are small.

Naturally this time around the loss may be slightly more than 5.714 or slightly lower than 5. Considering the current BTCUSD market and the current situation with the S&P 500 (which looks pretty dumpy) and the USDT Dominance chart (zoomed out it looks like it bottomed and is going up), then it looks more likely the loss this time around is greater than 5.714 rather than lower than 5. Or closer to being 5.714 than being 5. So it seems BTC is either a few k away from topping or is topping right about where it is now.

>> No.57748253

>>57748221
you have no methodology

>> No.57748305

>>57748221
I like your methodology

>> No.57748319

>>57748221
Yup and then sub 10k BTC like the OG /biz/ bears have been calling for

>> No.57748402

wow you are so smart

>> No.57748446

Very good bobo, very good HOWEVER:

FTX fractional fraud caused the double top, the AUC didn't change, but the curve was flatten, the last halving would have easily reached $100k without the fraud

>> No.57748456

>>57748446
what will be the cope for the underwhelming ath this cycle I wonder

>> No.57748628
File: 118 KB, 354x609, 1702326827904675.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
57748628

>>57748456
I realized what causes the bobo's deranged takes: you can't perceive reality, you can't look at the world without your "story" filter which is why you're constantly falling for TA and other tea leaf ass-pulls and convinced "da rug pull" is right around the corner, these create a narrative which your feeble mind needs to make sense of the world, but there is no narrative, no story, only the uncompromising relentless grind of supply and demand, our collective will made manifest

>> No.57749291

>>57748319
yup

>> No.57749381

>>57748628
you're the one telling a story about FTX lmao

>> No.57749449

>>57749381
AUC don't lie. You can't manipulate a market without weirding it, and you can't manipulate it for long. You'd understand if you weren't a retarded doomer bobo

>> No.57749497

>>57748221
Using 2021 as a datapoint doesn't make sense because it was an artificialdouble top caused by FTX. It would have gone way higher organically.
Using 2013 as a datapoint doesn't make sense because the entire bubble was caused by the gox willy bot.
Anything before 2013 can also be discarded, way too early days.
Now your data points that are worth anything is 1: 2017.
fucking retard

>> No.57749600

>>57748221
You're throwing darts at a board, kid. Hopefully you're smart enough to realize this.

>> No.57749614

>>57748221
Midbrains will do literally anything to not learn basic TA

>> No.57750607

>>57748221
>>57748227
TLDR to save time reading all that either we break ath or we are not going past 60k until the fed stops tightening the valves and turns on the money printers again. there is no new money circulating into the economy yet it is just existing money currently. we need new blood and new noobs entering the crypto markets so far we dont have that quite yet i still think 25k is on the table and for things to not really pick up until later this year when hopefully the fed pauses and people see that as a bullish sign

the other alternative is btc and realestate just keep going up because people see those two assets as being the most important but again the money has to come from somewhere and if nothing new is bring printed its just being taken from another sector of the economy

>> No.57750826

that's why this is a new paradigm triggered by etfs, bitcoin has consolidated and will now start a new trajectory out of the rainbow sorta parabola, i dont it will double top and spike down harder this time, i think the reason it went below the previous ath for the first time is due to the actual amount it grew was not a huge percentage so it was easy for it to crash 5k below the previous ath, and those arnt consistent with any previous bullrun