This week's issue was just sent out to the following users:

oda.krell
docile
John999
kramerc
iron77
kwest
jlin
CoinBurner
Aquatic

---

i do want to take this time to share with the greater forum some feedback i received via pm regarding last week's report:


thanks for the amazing feedback!

i am always accepting new subscriptions, so PM me if you are interested!

--arepo

it looks to me like one or more of the points you built your resistance on was an outlier, skewing the slope.

the contents of this thread easily describe the reason why that particular subreddit chose this action, whether or not i personally agree.

also i'd just like to point out that spamming this thread with ridicule and general condescension such that the ratio of posts defending either side of this important debate are strongly skewed in one direction has the same destructive effect as direct censorship.

--arepo

+1

from my experience, news doesn't predict price, price predicts news.

and remember that it's just a game, so have fun

low volume is not necessarily bearish, but we're sure as hell not going to be able to break above the mid-term resistance on this slow boat.

that is stable, and you're not the president. i would hope any president of the US would have a little bit better baseline understanding of the mechanisms underlying market pricing..

here's a start: it goes up, and then it goes down, because price is stochastic.

--arepo

+1

came here to say this. it's called poisoning the well.

--arepo

no worries. i realized shortly after that post that on the 1-week scale this figure does indeed look like its own triangle consolidation pattern, and mentioned the model in an update in the newsletter thread, as it does agree with the other data

--arepo

---

6-hour scale


https://i.imgur.com/LPi4cYw.png

---

looking at the 6-hour scale, we see a reversal candle (first marked in blue), which we can identify by its long wicks and small body. in general you can also use volume to help confirm these candles, but since volume is relatively low right now that method is not applicable. this corresponds with a bounce off of the mid-term resistance (not drawn, see figure on page 10 of issue 10 March), confirming the model.

however, we see a second possible reversal candle, also marked in blue. this may be a micro-term reversal (meaning just a couple of periods long) where the price may attempt to retest the $645 resistance (marked in white). the model presented in the newsletter suggests that this retest, if it occurs, will fail, and we will continue to trend downwards.

---

1-week scale


https://i.imgur.com/ox43PcI.png

---

zooming out, there is a possible descending triangle forming on the 1-week scale with a moving resistance and a flat support (drawn in white) which also supports the model presented in the newsletter. this would suggest that the next price target for this trend down will be around $605, close to the known support at $600.

if we break under this support, which may happen depending on how many weak hands there are in the market right now, we may continue to trend downwards all the way to the mid-term support detailed in the newsletter (figure on page 10 of issue 10 March).

another way to understand what is going on right now is to assume that the large movement up to $710 caused the market to be extremely overbought in the short-term. a short period of consolidation followed, and then a movement down to the support at $605 (visible in the 6-hour figure above). the action since then was likely largely composed of weak hands naively reading the recent large buy as a very bullish sign. however, not many traders were convinced of a real reversal of the mid-term downtrend and so buying pressure, while steady, remained light. since trading volume is just generally low right now, there was not much selling pressure to counter it, causing us to gently trend up to the mid-term resistance around $650-$660. however, when the price failed to decisively break-out on such low volume as projected in my last post, some weak hands sold, causing the bounce. as such, depending on how much of the buying action since the $710 move was composed of similarly weak hands, we could trend all the way back to the last $605 low, or lower.

--arepo

i recently made a post in the speculation subforum, drawing from the efficient market hypothesis and concepts from game theory, that argues that in most cases direct market manipulation would be costly, not profitable.

conclusion quoted below, but read the full post for the argument.


--arepo

haha, well there's your answer then. there will be a dip now because too many speculators are expecting a rise in price and the market moves to minimize profits. it's called a long squeeze.

--arepo

short answer: because the buyer to $710 pushed us into short-term overbought territory. long answer. longer answer, subscribe to my newsletter for in-depth weekly price analysis

--arepo

by my figure, this isn't a proper triangle consolidation pattern because the drawn resistance doesn't have enough points of contact. this looks much more like a micro-bubble started by the large movement up to $710. i expect a relatively sharp movement down to mirror the movement up, retracing at least 61.8% of the way back down to the $530 support, which confirms your target at the $600 support.

we shall see...

--arepo

what do you mean, "sleeping"?

i can assure you that what i said makes a whole lot more sense than your humorous word-salad. i've bolded the key terms for you, so let me know which words you failed to comprehend

unfortunately for the author, he seems to assume that the attractiveness of a cryptocurrency is tied in a major way to the value in traditional currencies of its base unit. the selling point for all cryptos is its utility, regardless of its market value...

sorry, maybe you should ask a botanist for an explanation of price behavior next time?

trading within a range occurs at the tail end of patterns that started with large movements. we're almost done tracing out the repercussions of the big drop from the ATH, and there isn't enough volume to push the price around much. as bid and ask depth fill in on either side, it locks the price into a smaller and smaller trading range until a large volume push can break us out into new price territory.

your argument is sound. there isn't much more to be said of the various metastrategies involving inducing other market participants to make a certain action other than the fact that they are unstable. you point out that if you are able to pull off such a dynamic strategy then it is at least feasible to profit from it, however you're doing far more than simple market manipulation at this point. i suppose the limits of my argument are to simply state that the idea that "market manipulation = profits" is not sound under basic game-theoretic formulations of the trading game.

edit: also deriveable from my original argument is that this metastrategy is more unstable the more efficient the market is. as such, there is a hard limit to the profitability of the dynamic metastrategy imposed by the cleverness of the other participants enforcing efficiency.

--arepo

does anyone else see the irony here?