Something that isn't talked about
According to every cycle since inception, Bitcoin has repeated some not-so-talked-about patterns.
First: every cycle has had a direct hit on the 0.5 log fib as illustrated here
What does this mean? Nothing to the ordinary man. But to me, it means every cycle has a distinct half-way point.
How do you find that half-way point without knowing the top is in?
Some people think that the nonlog 1.618 is the halfway point.
To their credit, it certainly is pretty close to the 0.5 fib; however, you can see in 2017 it was a touch high compared to the 0.5 fib. & That margin is getting worse every cycle. It was -6% lower in 2011, it was 1.5% higher in 2013, and 5% higher in 2017. With a continuation of this pattern, we would expect it to be more than 5% higher than the 0.5 fib. Maybe 8-12% higher? That'd be a 26.4k to 27.5k BTC
Another way I've determined this is through a predictive 1.5 fib. It was 6% high in 2011, 4.5% high in 2013, and 0.6% low in 2017 or 0.14% difference from the actual 0.5 fib.
The predictive 1.5 fib is determined by making a log based retracement from the previous high to low, making a new log retracement from that same low to the .786 of that previously marked retracement, and marking the 1.5 as illustrated here:
& Just for those curious about how I'm getting these numbers for 2011 when there wasn't a previous cycle to draw retracements from. I'll illustrate here
It's not foolproof, but it's pretty darn good. There is a problem with the idea as the 1.0 fib of my last retracement points to roughly 154k, which is way shy of my 264k top proposal. However, there is wiggle-room, and it could feasibly get that 1.0 fib up to just over 200k. So, I'd argue it's not completely broken.
With that knowledge, I can apply things that happened in 2013, 2017, and 2021 so far to 2011 & see if things are repeating.
The gold 1.272 to 1.618 range isn't quite there, but the blue 1.618, the predictive 1.5, and the 2.272 (top) is there just like every other cycle so far.
If that's not enough to convince you. If you take the previous cycle high, draw a percentage increase to the 0.5 of the next cycle, do that for every cycle, you find a diminishing percentage at a steady rate of 79% of the previous rate.
For example: 2011: the percent increase from the hypothetical previous top to the next 0.5 fib was 69.25%
2013 was 56.72%
2017 was 44.87%
These are dropping at a steady rate. If you multiply the previous percentage of say 69.25% by 0.79, you get close to 2013's 0.5 fib increase of 56.72% (calculated out to 54%).
So that rate would equate to a 34% increase from the 2017 top which is roughly 27k.
Like clockwork...
So with 2021 & 2017 alike, we touched down on the 1.618 (blue fib), found a higher high, then came down. 2017 came down 4.22% further, and another 4.22% further from where we struck the 1.618 would be right at 27.5k or my predictive 1.5 fib...
The margin of error is close and the reversal in the summer of 2021 had me convinced, but now things are appearing a bit clearer.
Like my info & would like to keep up? Find my twitter handle @ Ungovernable_io
See related ideas for more fun stuff.
First: every cycle has had a direct hit on the 0.5 log fib as illustrated here
What does this mean? Nothing to the ordinary man. But to me, it means every cycle has a distinct half-way point.
How do you find that half-way point without knowing the top is in?
Some people think that the nonlog 1.618 is the halfway point.
To their credit, it certainly is pretty close to the 0.5 fib; however, you can see in 2017 it was a touch high compared to the 0.5 fib. & That margin is getting worse every cycle. It was -6% lower in 2011, it was 1.5% higher in 2013, and 5% higher in 2017. With a continuation of this pattern, we would expect it to be more than 5% higher than the 0.5 fib. Maybe 8-12% higher? That'd be a 26.4k to 27.5k BTC
Another way I've determined this is through a predictive 1.5 fib. It was 6% high in 2011, 4.5% high in 2013, and 0.6% low in 2017 or 0.14% difference from the actual 0.5 fib.
The predictive 1.5 fib is determined by making a log based retracement from the previous high to low, making a new log retracement from that same low to the .786 of that previously marked retracement, and marking the 1.5 as illustrated here:
& Just for those curious about how I'm getting these numbers for 2011 when there wasn't a previous cycle to draw retracements from. I'll illustrate here
It's not foolproof, but it's pretty darn good. There is a problem with the idea as the 1.0 fib of my last retracement points to roughly 154k, which is way shy of my 264k top proposal. However, there is wiggle-room, and it could feasibly get that 1.0 fib up to just over 200k. So, I'd argue it's not completely broken.
With that knowledge, I can apply things that happened in 2013, 2017, and 2021 so far to 2011 & see if things are repeating.
The gold 1.272 to 1.618 range isn't quite there, but the blue 1.618, the predictive 1.5, and the 2.272 (top) is there just like every other cycle so far.
If that's not enough to convince you. If you take the previous cycle high, draw a percentage increase to the 0.5 of the next cycle, do that for every cycle, you find a diminishing percentage at a steady rate of 79% of the previous rate.
For example: 2011: the percent increase from the hypothetical previous top to the next 0.5 fib was 69.25%
2013 was 56.72%
2017 was 44.87%
These are dropping at a steady rate. If you multiply the previous percentage of say 69.25% by 0.79, you get close to 2013's 0.5 fib increase of 56.72% (calculated out to 54%).
So that rate would equate to a 34% increase from the 2017 top which is roughly 27k.
Like clockwork...
So with 2021 & 2017 alike, we touched down on the 1.618 (blue fib), found a higher high, then came down. 2017 came down 4.22% further, and another 4.22% further from where we struck the 1.618 would be right at 27.5k or my predictive 1.5 fib...
The margin of error is close and the reversal in the summer of 2021 had me convinced, but now things are appearing a bit clearer.
Like my info & would like to keep up? Find my twitter handle @ Ungovernable_io
See related ideas for more fun stuff.
Pubblicazioni correlate
Declinazione di responsabilità
Le informazioni ed i contenuti pubblicati non costituiscono in alcun modo una sollecitazione ad investire o ad operare nei mercati finanziari. Non sono inoltre fornite o supportate da TradingView. Maggiori dettagli nelle Condizioni d'uso.