Your general reasoning is a good reason to consider the bet that's for sure. I was wrong about a deeper correction from $48K, although technically I was never wrong about the idea of $30Ks at upper $60Ks, I simply pointing out that if a top occured from there would likely lead to $30Ks (more likely than finding supporting above that level). But I never said we would top out in the $60Ks, if anything the opposite is true, but it's somewhat beside the point. I was actually more convinced we'd go higher than previous ATH once we got there, even if I still considered a 50% correction as likely (from a new ATH). The issue here is that I'm only willing to consider a bet with at minimum a top formation. Because to put it simply I'm not naive enough to make a bet based on price topping out at X.

The bet for me would be less about whether there will be a correction (that there already is) but how deep the correction could go.


Yeh probably. I'm not even 60/40 that price goes to $40K either. That would be more like 52/48 if I had to assign random numbers. Probably 55/45 that we reach $50K at least.


OK Bitstamp instead, sure.


I'm not suggesting we make a bet unless price is around $60K, or has already gone below. Sure this could mean that if price dumped to $55K and failed to recover, there would likely be no bet. But otherwise, below $61.4K I'm interested. $60K was more of a round number reference. As price is finding support again from the 200 MA on 4hr (as anticipated) then I'm not jumping into a bet here for obvious reasons. I'd be better off re-considering around $80K. Bistamp otherwise does provide a considerably lower price requirement, though I understand and respect the desire to stick with this exchange. It's certainly one I'd have to think about, based on breaking $40K but not necessary reaching $37K either.



2024 would be fine for me. Depends on the bet, if it were $40K or $80K that's clear cut I think (even if takes a while). Otherwise 2024 would be fine for me. Assuming I'd lose either way by 2025 that is. As a summary, this is the bet I'd be more willing to take, and I think is fairer for the both of us, based on my previous reasoning that the % difference would be the same going to $40K or $80K from approx $60K.


That would be fair, I'd only consider the bet as lower than $40K (even if only by a cent and based on a wick). Given that's ultimately the level you seem convinced confident price won't break. I'm otherwise not considering this a slam dunk bet either, and I wouldn't be willing to bet much on it. It's be more for the lolz and fun rather than any potential satoshi gain. There'd be more fun to be had with offering double or nothing odds to such scenarios as reaching $50K or $70K once the bet is applied (from both sides). Even if it'd mainly be taunting, it's all fun and games.


I'm just pointing out ways in which I could lose the bet and should consider my options here. Ideally the bet would be reaching $40K in 2024 or not, but I realise even with your confidence in that not happening, that this wouldn't be a favourable bet you, without winning the bet if price reached $80K for example. So just trying to compromise here, even if it's not necessarily in my best interests at all.


2024 would be fine. We can take 2025 off the table here. I wouldn't even feel hard done by if it reached there in 2025, I'd probably have a lot more to be concerned about if that happened.

My bad, I might had missed your counter offer, but got the impression you weren't interested in the vagueness of a 50% drop in 2024, as per below. As I said before, until there was a top formed/forming, there wouldn't be any bet I'd be willing to make on where a 50% correction came from, as it would be a complete stab in the dark (ie $80K, $100K, etc), only that I think it would in 2024.


You were wise to not take that bet then


At current price (between $60K and $70K roughly), I'm pretty neutral about whether there will be such a correction from here, or higher levels, like $80K. What I believe is more likely to happen isn't necessarily the odds I'd apply, as I'd prefer to stick to the odds that the chart is telling me. Even being 50/50 is a bit of a dubious position, as it's only the 20 DMA that's broken, the shorter-term time-frames remain bullish.



On a side note: I'm also slightly surprised that price didn't continue on to $80K after breaking ATH, as there was certainly room for a blow-off style top with maximum overbought conditions. The momentum wasn't on the side of the bulls after all it seems, as it wasn't selling pressure but more so lack of buying pressure (based on volume that was declining since the top rather than increasing/maintaining with sell volume). But with that, and without a blow-off top with high sell volume, it doesn't necessarily put me in better position (in the context of betting on further downside), as price is instead consolidating right now. Neither the bulls nor the bears are showing they have the momentum for either further upside or downside, even if one side will eventually have a breakthrough with this in the near-term. But as referenced, below $60K, I would be 60/40 anticipating further downside over the next few months. Even if market structure isn't in my favour necessarily right now, I acknowledge that GBTC selling probably is at the moment.

So based on Coinbase high of $73,835.57, I make a 50% correction from current high $36,917.79, which I'd be willing to make a bet over given a break of $60K. Granted this would only be a further -38% to the downside, but would be -50% from the top, which as you said you don't believe is very unlikely (at least without reaching $80K or higher). But I can understand that if price fell below $60K, maybe you'd increase your odds of reaching around $40K and therefore the bet would no longer be in your favour. But I'm basing this in your initial statement that would remain true even with breaking $60K or $50K for that matter:


So with this in mind, and a break of $60K (and price around that level as it were), I think me betting on $40K coming first and you on $80K would be a fairer bet no?  That would be 33% in either direction from there. And would also mean I'm not relying on a precise number to fall to, given that I think -50% is more of a maximum that's likely, and could easily be a few percent off either way. I'd feel pretty daft if price got to $40K but miss $37K in reality. If anything I wonder if this bet would favour you more here, as price could reach $80K before reaching $40K for example... which is a risk I'd have to take here.

(With that last part I'd have to consider whether this bet would really be fair after all, and whether simply reaching $40K this year would fairer for me, even if price reached $80K for example)


Bare in mind that UnDerDoG81 has been the market since 2013, not just during the bull run, so I doubt they are clueless here.

I don't think that's what JJG was implying what you are saying either, only that the decision could be more emotional rather than logic based, which would also make sense if it's based on what he/she feels comfortable with holding, rather than what logically would be the "best" quantity to hold. Being 100% invested is otherwise very greedy, so you can look at this either way (even JJG isn't 100% invested!)

Just be aware that selling around ATH is historically a very risky strategy. But also, depends on your exposure how much your selling etc. If you're 100% invested, then sure, you could be overexposed here, even if price were to go to the upside, you wouldn't be "losing" much by holding 90%. Especially if you'd feel more comfortable having some dry powder for a potential correction.

Often I think it's less about whether price is more likely to go up or down, but what you feel more comfortable with, or which scenario you'd prefer to be. Ie, would you prefer to have 10% capital for a potential correction, or prefer to be 100% in rather than 90% if there were further upside? That's the real question here. To me that'd be a no brainier, as I'm not as greedy as I used to be, but everyone is different.


Not sure if you were asking me, but at present I'd say 50/50 further upside. With $60K breaking I'd be 60/40 for further downside. With $69K breaking to the upside I'd say 60/40 further upside. Not massively swaying in either direction here and from a trading perspective this is very much in a "no trade zone" when inbetween support and resistance. Hence emphasis on too early tell. But also if you're not willing to sell below $60K (for obvious reasons), then you'd have to make a decision before then. Not gonna lie, some of the best analysts are suggesting that the cycle is over now with ETFs entering the space, which while I generally agree with, I don't believe it will be fully realised until GBTC selling is resolved. Either that, of net inflows returns to positive again, which again above $69K would be quite likely I think.

As for the idea that ETF investors will jump ship if price corrected in half, I think the opposite is true. They got in knowing price could correct 50% or further, and are instead much more likely to double down at a considerable discount, after some consolidation and price stability (ie not buying the dip per say), compared to retail who are known for panic selling. I don't think they are naive or going to be quick sellers, but instead they will happily sit back and let prices fall until strength returns to the market, as they have done this week, as is the norm for ETF investing, in order to buy strength not weakness. I think JJG might even agree with me to some degree on this point that ETF investors are more likely to be strong hands, that I'm slowly but surely coming round to, especially given the lack of selling over the recent correction. Even if this doesn't change the situation with GBTC outflows at present.

Obviously this is speculation that ETF holders will be strong hands, as is that they will be weak hands, when neither can be proven yet. But that's all we have to go on for now: speculation.

Yes, but you can take my opinion with a dose of salt as I've been sceptical about this rally since $48K  

According to Pi Cycle Top, as discussed elsewhere, $70K is either the mid-cycle top (like in 2019, 2016 and 2012), prior to a correction and consolidation, or this is the late-stage top, ie start of full blown bull market, like in 2020, 2017 and 2013. Based on time, I see this as a mid-stage not a late-stage top, especially given this indicator has "factored in" a new ATH being at this mid-stage top, and has previously been the most accurate at identifying these types of tops. This would otherwise be the first time there has been no "mid-stage correction" in Bitcoin's history, so while possible, the argument is that "this time it's different" - which is a fair argument given the introduction of ETFs and new ATH already. But only time will tell whether this is actually true or not, with the recent break of ATH not being enough to justify that speculative opinion as of yet.

More than anything I think ETFs are following the price, not leading it. There has been net inflows on the way up and net outflows on the way down generally speaking, even if they are helping to drive the price in both directions. All it will take is for GBTC to offload the rest of their coins, which may only take a couple of months from here, but until then and seeing net outflows, there remains selling pressure.

Based on price alone, either $69K breaks to the upside and price rallies further, or otherwise $60K breaks to the downside, leaving a pretty sizeable volume gap down to $52K at best, but more realistically $42K to $44K (which would still be a macro higher low). Also within a couple of months the 50 Week MA will be around these prices too, so bullish continuation could start from there quite easily. Based on 200 WMA projection, it should be around $37K by August (that was also a consolidation level) and would be a full -50% haircut, which is about as low as I see price going for now, if the correction lasted 4 months.

I'm otherwise overlooking the shorter-term TA on 4hr, as while price is currently confirming resistance around $68K (bearish trending 50 MA and ichimoku cloud at volume point of control), this could all still be broken with ease after another re-test of the 200 MA that previously supported the price perfectly (as expected in strong uptrends) and is currently around $62K. Too early to tell comes to mind here.

Wasn't expecting that, would of thought inflows were positive based on the buying pressure. 3.8K Bitcoin is a fair amount of corn to scoop up from ETFs. Reclaiming $69K will likely bring back the ETF volume imo though, this would help to nullify the fake-out ATH scenario with a bullish weekly wick. Either that or $68K get's confirmed as a resistance level for the time being. This is otherwise the first real test of short-term resistance since $40K levels based on cloud, MAs and volume, so I can understand with the hesitancy from ETF investors on this one, given they quite clearly aren't in the market to buy dips.

The only relevance to me is based on potential selling pressure, as I explained above. We've seen consistent outflows in the past 2 months and it's fair to assume that will continue (irrespective of price), until it no longer does or slows down to become insignificant. Naturally these outflows weren't that relevant when the overall inflows of ETFs outweighed the outflows when price was trending upwards, especially when a lot can be attributed to GBTC holders moving to other ETFs. However this week, similar to January correction, the outflows are again outweighing the inflows. It means that GBTC is significant when it comes to selling pressure, at least at present. Even if just one of many factors including miners reserves (that last I heard they hold 1.82m BTC), liquidiations, even exchange holdings, etc.

Your questions in general seem better directed to GBTC holders, rather than myself and potentially others. I actually agree with what you're saying overall though. Why do holders care if GBTC is holding it's peg, why bother move to Blackrock just because the fee is currently lower (when next year it could be same as GBTC anyway). But this "why the outflows" question isn't relevant to me, only the data, that shows outflows.


Overall, there was $362 million outflows, following $154m on Monday. You're right that except for GBTC none of the ETF's had outflows. This is somewhat irrelevant if the overall sum of inflows and outflows ETFs is negative (selling pressure), especially with GBTC holding $26 billion in Bitcoin still, selling an average of $277m per day. If not obvious, the inflows from other ETFs needs to be higher than the outflows from GBTC, in order for there to be overall positive inflows (buying pressure). Cherry picking the data and ignoring GBTC, while relevant to new investor interest, isn't relevant to buying/selling pressure at present.

The concern should be obvious. If there are more outflows than inflows as there has been this week, then there is selling presure from ETFs (overall), not buying pressure. And for the avoidance of doubt, there has been a very strong correlation between overall inflows with price increase and overall outflows with price decrease, so this buying/selling pressure is far from theoretical, even if not tested long-term yet.

The reference to "immediate term" should be obvious; during the period where GBTC is offloading Bitcoin. Without that, the inflows would still be positive despite the price correction, so isn't applicable long-term.

So according to CoinTelegraph, it'd be around 4 months (though the wording "current rate" shouldn't be considered accurate here):


By my calculations, and current average selling, it'd be more like 3 months (26.6 billion (total) / 274.2 million (average per day) = 97 days). Based on the actual current rate of this week's average (so far) of 542.5 per day, it would actually take 49 days. So somewhere between 1.6 months ("current rate") and 3.2 months (average so far). That puts the estimated range as May 8 to June 23. The middle of that range is May 30*.

The fact GBTC is recording record outflows is a good thing however and should be encouraged. The sooner they sell their coins, the better, it is literally just a matter of time. If anything, the lack of inflows at current price is more of a concern in the immediate term, with Blackrock recording their lowest inflows to date of only $75m, compared to an average of $277m. Especially when the record of $849m was made at $70K prices. Price has dropped -15% since then and remains at a 10% discount. Where did all the ETF buyers go? It gives the impression they only want to buy in big amounts on the way up, not on the way down (buying strength not weakness), as I suspected might happen. It also shows that GBTC holders are not currently moving their investments to other ETFs, but instead to cash to put it in simple terms (at least this week). This is only based on two days of data, even if it's very similar to Jan correction outflows. Similarly ETF data is only 2 months old (mostly during an uptrend as well), so is too early to tell whether investors will be buying down as well as up.

*Probably should be noted that it's unlikely 100% of investors will flee GBTC, so the end date for continuous outflows could be much sooner

Yes, this I agree with and have maintained as an opinion since the ETF. For now, the ETFs will follow the market, not the other way around. At least until most Bitcoin held long-term is in ETFs rather than self-custody.


This time it still could be different, and arguably already has been different. That of making an ATH prior to the halving which has never happened before. But I think price aside, the dyanmics of the 4 year cycle will still play out, especially since the current recovery has been over 12 months, meaning there is a lot of room for 3-9 months of consolidation, starting with a correction.


Well you said 2022, not 2020, so wasn't that funny 


Even if you compare to 2024 to 2016, there's not a lot of difference. Namely a correction followed by correction prior to and after the halving.

I don't think it's fear at, but since 2016 there have been considerable corrections/consolidation prior to and after the havling. Most notably, no upside immediate prior of after.

Whether that happens this time around is a different story, but history often repeats. Personally I think it's more about miners selling prior to switching off.

Isn't it $40b? It shouldn't take that long I don't think, maybe another month or two? Especially if the selling continues to increase.

Can someone remind me how much Bitcoin GBTC had to begin with, how much they've sold already? Want to calculate what the timeframe is looking like.

Ironically without GBTC outflows, there basically are no outflows, even if lower inflows at present, which speaks volumes...

The sooner that GBTC is flushed out the market the better.

For sure, 2022 was a bear year. For me, 2024 is supposed to be a consolidation year (from the 2022 bear and 2023 recovery).

The fact we've massively overshot the recovery to new ATH doesn't change much for me.

Maybe you meant 2020 as the comparison...


Too early to tell, price could easily find support around $60K and return to new ATH. It all depends on ETF inflows at this point, more than anything. Technical analysis will confirm either way, but it will likely be a lagging indicator to some degree.  Namely, whether ETF inflows will outpace outflows, regarding GBTC selling. This wasn't the case in the correction from $48K when we saw more outflows, but with ETFs so fresh, it wasn't possible to make much of an assessment. Now we see another outflow day (though not major outflows compared to the major inflows we have seen), I suspect the inflows will be higher when trending up, and the outflows will be higher when trending down, at least until GBTC is flushed out the system. This would also be pretty usual for ETF activity of buying strength as opposed to weakness. There otherwise isn't a lot of GBTC left, but there is a enough that needs to be shifted. This backlog needs to be cleared out imo for a healthy uptrend, even if that only takes another month or two based on current holding and outflows.


That's an interesting chart not gonna lie. I had never considered these "mid-cycle" top signals, such as 2012, 2016 and 2019.

However there's something notably wrong about the analysis painted over this. It's assuming the first test of the 350 DMA*2 is the late stage top, as opposed to the mid-stage, as per every cycle. While it could be, we have never had a late stage top (ie, beginning of bull market) without a mid-stage. Secondly, just because the mid-stage came in 2019 last cycle, it has also previously been in 2012 and 2016, based on the 4 year cycle, it stands to reason that this is the mid-stage top. Note how the late stage top came late 2020 and early 2013 & 2017, as opposed to early 2020. So we're about 10 months off for this imo. Hence we've never seen the late stage top leading to a bull market pre-halving, so there is that as well, for those who still consider the 4 year cycle in tact despite the new ATH (a view I still subscribe to at least based on time).

I've otherwise been expecting a mid-stage top with a significant correction of around -50%, taking 3-9 months, since $48K (0.618 fib retracement level), even if price reached $80K etc. In hindsight, this chart would of been useful to see where a mid-stage top would more likely be. Interestingly, top cycle top indicator was the only reliable one in late 2021, compared to all the rest that pointed to further upside, so it shouldn't be ignored as random or otherwise. Either way, I'd say the chart is accurate in the sense that this is either the start of the bull market, or we're looking at a mid-stage considerable correction (in time and price).


This sums it up nicely. It lacks confirmation it's a late-stage top, at the moment it's speculative. I'm not sure what the confirmation of a mid-stage top would be, but personally it'd be breaking the current "immediate term" uptrend, proabably around $60K higher low, then we can see how strong the support is around $40K to $45K. Most people seem certain that we will never see $50K again which is worrying. Personally I think there is a reasonable chance, especially if this week confirms a new ATH fake-out similar to 2021 and $60K foesn't hold as support, as there's very weak volume support in between, ETFs aside.

Will consider making a poll/topic when/if we reach $60K to see if the sentiment is returning to new ATH or $50K. I suspect most people won't believe a correction is happening until it's already happened.

Pretty sure this is "usual" selling, the momentum has slowed down since $60K/March, around $800m long liquidations in past two days, and now wicked off 20 DMA around $66K, which is basically the first level of real support (and hasn't been testing since late Feb when price bounced off it). Price still looks bullish above $60K, even if there could be concern over a fake-out high at that level, it's too early to tell.

I think sometimes we forget that even in late 2020, after reaching close to ATH, there was still a couple of weeks of consolidation and wicks to the downside (upto -16%, similar to last week), especially when in considerably overbought territory like we were back then and are still in now. Would of been better to see the correction prior to new ATH rather than after, but you get what you're given.

Otherwise seems very reasonable and appropriate for ATH leverage traders to get rekt  


Would have thought this would be good news to be honest!

Not too long of a reply today  

The red bit is almost exciting.


Speculation isn't a guessing game, it's based on theories without proper evidence to back it up.
Hence: when a theory is untested, it's speculation, as simple as that (whether accurate or not).


I was thinking of this chart as a representation of that.


Lol, that's fair enough.


I'm betting more on up than down here, but sure, with capital on stand by I'm certainly not 100% long, as I usually am in fairness. The whole structure just all seems a bit "iffy" to me, not much else. I never had this feeling in Bitcoin before, even when it dropped to $15.5K, sure I thought that it could reach $12K by the end of the year, but otherwise the whole idea of a down year, a recovery year, a consolidation year and an up year was all very much in tact, despite the price changes. It's simply the current price vs time that I'm not convinced by, not much else, not any bearish signs in the market that's for sure.

Since understanding Bitcoin in 2017, the whole 4-year cycle gave me a lot of faith, as it was something that could be trusted and relied upon, especially given the reasoning for it's existence ie the halving. Sure, it wouldn't tell you where the top or bottom was, and that was never the point of it either, but it would be able to tell you whether you're in a bear year or a bull year for example. My summary is, that I think we are still in a consolidation year - until this is no longer the case - and that means some sideways action at minimum, or otherwise a correction in order to build momentum for 2025. Similar to 2020 basically, minus the crash.


This is simply where we differ then; I don't believe price is likely to go up for another 18 months. It'd be great if it did, but given the year-long rally that has already occurred, that'd be a total of 2.5 year bull trend, which I don't find very realistic right now. Of course anything is possible, I'm not against speculating that this is possible either, but simply that I'm struggling to find the evidence of why this would happen.


Sure, this is partially when I think a low level of support would be more likely around $35K if a correction occurs, because already it's going to be there in a couple of months now, and I don't think price would drop in half much sooner than that if it were to do so. It's also likely to be above $40K by the end of the year, which ironically last year was my target for a post-halving consolidation price, so that remains unchanged for now.


In all honestly, I'm willing to come around to these ideas a lot more after the halving, once enough miners switch off and the network corrects. If price doesn't correct or consolidate alongside the correction of hash rate, then sure, 2-3x becomes an easy milestone, and the initial effects of the halving would be unlikely to negatively effect price, whether that be by decline or more "stalling" the price, like in 2020.

At the moment, I don't see any reason that there won't be the usual significant decline in hash rate, based on current metrics and historic data, and while I've never been someone to suggest shorting the price based on this correction (I know I won't be), I'm still aware that it leads to a correction/consolidation, as I've stated many times I'm pretty sure. So my opinion will likely change post-halving as well.


This is a fair argument we can both agree on. It never has in fact, even if it remains possible.

(Baring in mind until 2021, Bitcoin had never had a fake-out ATH either, until it did...)


I said $30K from $48K, I quite clearly said around $35K as a low level of support from $70K (simply as this is -50%). Spoiler alert, I'll likely say $40K as support from $80K  


I generally think 2024 will be a consolidation of price between the move from $15.5K and X, whereby X is based on the high of 2024, that is currently at $70K, but could be $80K, $100K, etc. So that means some sort of -50% from X, which from my perspective isn't possible to bet on, because there is the unknown variable of X. If price were to get rejected from here, and break below $50K, then sure, I'd be more willing to consider some bet about testing $35K before the end of the year. But until then, there isn't anything for me to bet on. Maybe you were under the impression I was short because I took profits, but simply I'm neutral by maintaining a hodl position and removing a mid-term trade that achieved the anticipated target (the fact it exceeded the target becomes irrelevant here, for what I consider to be obvious reasons).

Often the best bet to have is NO BET, which is more of less my current situation you could argue based on recent positioning, even though I'm approximately 60% long you could say, but this is based on a hodl position from 2018-2020 that I quite frankly don't consider as a position nor trade, so is somewhat irrelevant. Being in cash is a no bet scenario, not long nor short. But otherwise, if you're willing to consider a bet based on X (being an ATH of 2024) and X/2 being the price target, then I'd actually consider it. Obviously these aren't specific numbers right now, but by the end of 2024 they will be...


Yes please! If that's the interpretation I gave, then I'd like to avoid others making the mistake of interpreting my words like that again. Even if it involves a boring disclaimer for noobs.

Especially the idea of selling on the way down, that doesn't sound like me at all. Probably the idea that others would likely sell on the way down, sure, but not suggesting others do...

In summary: I didn't tell others to sell then, that was just your interpretation, which already seems wildly out of touch with the reality of what I said to be frank with you.


Again, this comes down to assumption. If I believe X is likely/possible, the correlation isn't always that I am weighted or positioned for X. I don't feel the need to regurgitate everyone else saying that Bitcoin will reach $100K before halving, or $200K this year. Mainly, because these are concepts/theories that I believe are obvious, whereas, maybe the idea of that not happening isn't so obvious... clearly.

Generally I find there is more valuable in information that is a minority opinion, and thus under-represented, rather than the dominant opinion, which is widely available.


I also did last year being an uber-bull and banging on about a recovery to $48K, so wouldn't be the first time!



This would again be where we differ in opinion, even though I do see an argument for that. Especially if 2025 was still a bull year and 2026 a bear year for example.


I said considerably, so probably something >$75K, although this would still be quite conservative if you look at $69K being a fake-out of $64K.

It's about eliminating all possibilities, in this case, a fake-out high, that sure has never happened after 2 years of an ATH, but obvious could....


Probably because I spend more time trading than I do hodling, as the latter literally involves no effort? It doesn't involve selling 5% here and buying back 5% there. It's more or less an emergency stash I've only ever had to dip into once in 2021 for about 1%. If I were to document my hodling, there wouldn't be much of a story, it would be a topic based on "I'm hodling" with a single update of "sold 1%" in 2021.


For me this is what I'll do with my trading account; basic maintenance. Making sure the weight of my investments are adequate, although involves a lot more shitcoin profit taking (usually 50% every 2x) and otherwise full blown liquidations towards the end of the bull year. This is exactly what a trading account is for, which is the opposite of HODL account - as the idea of the latter is DO NOTHING, HODL.


That's literally what some of the best traders say  


Feel free to call yourself an investor, even if you trade, I'm really not that bothered. But hodlers don't sell, clues in the name. At least a hodl position is never sold, trading/investor accounts are obviously different, as requires balancing with broader portfolios and the like. That's a completely different ball park in my opinion. Hence my hodl and trading accounts are completely separate. Probably as well if you're not willing to lose the value of your hodl, it also shouldn't be a hodl (because you won't hodl to 0 like you should), so naturally this should be balanced accordingly to only hodl what you feel comfortable with or able to.


This makes sense, and why I think managing an investor account completely separate from a HODL makes a lot of sense. The former you can actively manage, as you should with investments, the latter you literally hold on for dear life, nothing else. Maybe you end up retiring from it, but more realistically someone inherits it (because you held on for your entire life: you win). Just food for thought, you do you.

Your hodl could literally only be 1-5% of your entire stash, as is the going recommendation for a Bitcoin allocation to hodl. But not having a hodl allocation just seems very bizarre to me. I understand that the assumption is you will always have 1-5% left, even with actively managing an investment account, but even this risk isn't worth considering or even necessary in my opinion, for various reasons. For example ideally your hodl is in deep cold storage, not an "active" cold storage which you access, and therefore has every potential to becomes a risk. A piece of paper in a vault you own is ideal in my opinion.

I'm not even trying to convince you to have a hodl position, I just think it's strange you don't have one, and more relevantly, would be easy to implement by the sound of it.


You talking "playing swings" in the market, but you're not a trader? OK then...

For starters, it would be a triple top at best, not quadruple 

Also it's arguably not a triple top, as after the double-ish top, price corrected -75% and is back to it's highs after 2 years.

Is also a good time to reference Gold's triple top from 2020 to 2023. Is looking pretty bullish wouldn't you say?

You've always been bearish since 2011, so you're nothing more than troll 

Gonna have to cherry pick some replies here, as that's almost too long to read, had to skim some of it even, and it took me a few days to write back  

Also cutting quoting as otherwise reply will be even more hideously longer, and because we both know what was originally said...


I was more 60/40 for a considerable correction around $50K, now at ATH, I'm probably more 50/50. Although my allocation doesn't reflect that neutrality.


This is all speculation, none of this can be attributed actual facts. I'm speculating that they are liable to be weak hands (as per all newbies), you're speculating they'll be strong hands (as per ETF holders).

It's exactly this type of gray-area speculation I'm not a fan of. It's inconclusive, unpredictable, and only time will tell which theory is correct. Right now, it could be either. Let's be real about it.


I meant March 2020 time wise, not price wise. But anyhow, yes, it's currently no mans land, we are well beyond dead cat bounce territory here. Price has fully recovered now. However based on certain metrics, we are indeed still in the "belief/denial" stage, which makes sense right? You believe and I could be in denial. The main issue I have is that we've passed the point of no return based on historical data, and that a macro top is coming soon enough (long before 2025), one that leads to a year-long bear market. This I don't believe, not with the halving this year etc, therefore I don't think we'll have a multi-year bull market if we are close to creating a macro top already, which I agree would be north of $100K. If we do, then so be it, the Bitcoin cycle is destroyed and it all becomes unpredictable, leaving only holding left as a reasonable strategy, at least until more data and price action becomes available.


I minced by words, I meant in a literal sense price is closer to October 2021. Whether price is more similar to the structure of December 2020 I'm not going to argue over... it's obviously at new ATH level.



Yeh, this is kind of the point I'm trying to make. If it's premature for a full blown bull market, then it's likely something else will plug that time gap in the meantime.


Once we convincingly break $70K level then I'll (again) change my opinion, as naturally it changes based on price change (as it should), but we are still not there yet. There's nothing yet to prove (at least as I type) that this isn't a fake-out ATH, similar to October 2021. Given I was in complete denial about the fake-out high back then, I won't be making the same mistake here, especially with proof of concept now available.


It depends on the context of "too fast". Too fast for there to be a bull run in 2025? Absolutely, it's basically a few months from a top based on previous overbought levels. Too fast to not go above $100K? Absolutely not, it's basically on target, and could go beyond that with ease (the 2x from here theory let's call it). One thing I do think is that we will either reach $100K within a few months, or consolidate sideways for 3-9 months similar to $25K to $30K level (between maybe $50K and $70K), or correct 50% from here or near abouts, being the worst case scenario but far from macro bearish either, but rather bullish long-term to build up momentum for a(nother) 12 month bull run. For reference sake, price is beyond overbought levels of 2019 (that were a weedy 80 on RSI) and closing in on 2021 post-2014 record of around 95. 2017 peaked twice at 90 in June and December. We're currently at 88, so sure, there could be a couple of considerably higher peaks in next 6 months, no denying that.

My concern of reaching $100K so soon, as a macro top, would be the entering a year-long bear market in 2024(?), correcting much further than 50%. Maybe the halving would help us out eventually, but given it's based on demand, with a sell off is greater than the buying, along with ETF profit taking (think we can both agree at 2-3x there would be considerable outflows, especially coming off a parabolic top), the havling wouldn't become relevant until price finally stabilises again. Granted, that is most of the possible scenarios I guess, which is kind of the point. It's otherwise the last example I find the most unlikely here.

It'd be great to be under the impression that price could go to $100K or $200K, within a few months, with zero considerable downside potential. But really?!


Again, I'm not wishing for it, it's simply what concerns me the most right now. Most of me would prefer if it didn't happen. There's context to where I bought and where I sold, they were long-term targets that I intended to stick to. The investment was never supposed to be locked up for as long as it was, but alas it paid off. Taking that investment out was intended to be the end of high-risk investments, "degen trading", with money I shouldn't have really been using in the first place, but alas let's see what happens in 3 years time and whether I'm tempted again for another 2x long-term trade.

So my current situation is to be a bit more responsible with investments (let's say I try and improve this on an annual basis, but it doesn't necessary work when tempted by conviction), so I'm very grateful for the situation I'm in. To make a high-risk trade, it pay off, and not suffer from the greed on holding on (like so many do), or otherwise the "loss" of an extra +20%, that contextually wouldn't exist without taking the risk in the first place.  There's an old saying that no-one ever went broken from selling at a profit (the context is that many did go broke from trading money they shouldn't have been).


My consideration is more based on the decreasing volatility over time, rather than returning to the high levels of volatility as 2017. Many still see 2021 as some sort of price suppression or otherwise, personally I just see it as the natural evolution of reduced volatility that was always projected, especially when an asset reaches >$1T. Not much else to say on that I think.


That's good, fortunately no-one is arguing that we need to revisit those lows that I know of...  Let me know if anyone is saying that, as I'd happily argue there is no need to go to $30K, nor $100K right now for that matter, I'd happily point them in the right direction of reality. Bitcoin doesn't need to go anywhere, it just exists. Things that can be considered likely to happen is a different story.


When did I suggest people sell their coins? I don't think I've ever suggested anyone sell their coins. To be cautious, sure, but never to sell? You are assuming that just because I am doing something that I think others should be doing the same. Unless others are in the exact same situation as myself, which they aren't, then there would be no reason to be advising others on how to manage their assets would there?

It's otherwise playing out very well right now, thanks for asking, I have an overwhelming sense of relief. I thought I might even regret it a bit with price moving higher, but in the fact opposite is true. I stuck to my targets, didn't get greedy, and happily ride the rest of the move with what I feel comfortable with and able to. I feel like I've transitioned from degen to a responsible degen, which is progress.

I otherwise pretty certain I specifically DIDN'T assigned any % to the outcome of say $30K, or $35K. My outcome was purely based on correction or sideways price action. There's no way of realistically telling how deep a correction can go in those scenarios, only maybe maximum based on support levels, or how long sideways price movement can realistically last for (whether it's 3 months or 6 or 9 or a year).

I'll leave it to the speculators to assign random % chances to certain price targets, as if the percentages are meaningful rather than plucked out of a degen hat  


Excellent, good for you, sticking to your principles! (I obviously wasn't trying to... I honestly couldn't give a shit where your buy orders are, no offence! That's your business and strategy, not mine)


Likewise, entering no mans land does not mean we are simply going to continuing going up through it. We usually do, but no always. Welcome to 2021, it's a new era.


Why did it happen in October 2021 when all the bears eventually got rekt? Why would it happen to all the newbies ETF investors? WhY Oh whY?


I'm not even calling for down, you've misread what I've said. I made it clear: consolidation, whether that be downwards or sideways. Cooling off at minimum.


We can agree on this much, price doesn't usually go bearish overnight, especially after a parabolic move to the upside (+100% in about 3 months). It's take some re-test and harsher rejection from new highs, likely a lower high, failing support at lower levels, etc. The type of neutral consolidation that turns bearish. I don't expect price to suddenly reverse to the downside, not given the current bullish momentum.



So I shouldn't put emphasis on squiggled on a chart, I should look at squiggles on someone elses chart, then assign random % to certain price targets? This is the way to be a real/true speculator right?

I don't even rely on squiggles anyway, that's a mugs game (no offence, I know you like them really, as long as they are all mathematically squiggled).


It's manipulation to the downside but never to the upside, gotcha. Never heard that one before. As if Tether didn't exist  


I know mental right. Having one opinion but being proportionately weighted for either direction. It's almost like I have a bias towards Bitcoin or something?? Doesn't make any sense.

It's not like I'm on a Bitcoin forum talking about Bitcoin is it... oh wait. Obviously I am! Maybe I should head over to the fiat forums instead haha.


Precisely. Price may or may not be going against Bitcoin history/cycles, only time will tell. This could literally go either way right now, so best to be prepared for either direction. Price says it wants to continue to go to the upside, the cycle says we should be consolidating. We can't do both very easily here, and for now, I still say the cycles exists until they are broken. We've already seen a fake-out ATH before remember... but we've never seen the cycle broken, this is as close as we've got so far. Either way, it should all start to become clearer after the halving, if not before with a considerably higher ATH, that would likely be a defining moment.

I'm not going to start speculating with everyone else that the cycle is broken and the parabolic full blown bull run starts now, although it does seem popular based on current price, that seems like a degen thing to do right now personally. As old school as it sounds, I'd prefer to stick with the current facts and constants based on history rather than the potential theories and variables. Especially when they are based on ETF boys.


Lol, I wouldn't be saying that. Especially when I made it clear I'm more 50/50 and sceptical rather than bearish, I'm just outlining worst case scenarios, and I'm far from the only one even if it's a minority opinion. If price had reversed from $48K to say $30K, then sure, I might be saying "I told you so" because I was a lot more confident in that opinion than I am of a reversal from ATH here. More importantly, it's not about saying "I told you so", it's about providing all the available perspectives here, which can be useful to others (I'm not just talking about mine, yours as well).

As an example like when I said that it was likely that price would reverse back to around $48K in 2024, I was a few months off timing wise granted, but most people thought I was insane at that time.


Obviously that not what I said, meant or think. I simply think there are alternative theories to the dominant one. I'm sorry to hear you feel that way though, that's a tough projection to deal with by sounds of it.


No, you misunderstood. I'm trying to explain how your theory is AS speculative as mine.
I'm willing to acknowledge it is speculation, are you?


Think I already covered this above, but I didn't sell any of my HODL, so there is that. It was taking profits on a high-risk trade (or in my opinion, the lowest risk trade you can get with Bitcoin every 4 years). So it was a definite minority of my holdings, there is that. As I said, and maybe should of explained better originally, it was around $23K to $48K. There is no loss here. My rationale is that without taking that risk in the first place, I wouldn't be in the position of having X capital now. This also means sure, I wouldn't be opposed to buying around $50K or higher, as long as it's after the halving for example.

It's easy to think with the mindset of "paying more to buy those coins back", but for me, as I explained, it was money I shouldn't have been investing in the first place in reality. Probably predominantly because I didn't take any profits in 2021, it was certainly a way to counter that in the short-term. I really shouldn't have X available to buy a dip or consolidation, but fortunately I do now (which I obviously wouldn't otherwise). And sure, it would have been easy to buy back at $40K, and despite the temptation, I didn't want to "test my luck" after selling at $48K before price reversed.


Historically, based on 4-year cycles, this isn't necessarily true or accurate I don't believe. Based on reaching a new ATH, then sure, each time it's been highly volatile, whether to the upside or downside.


No, sounds you you've sold a lot more Bitcoin from your stash than me personally (based on % that is)  

Since 2018, I have sold about a 1% of my HODL I think. But also our situations are different, I'd prefer to put 5-15% in speculating on altcoins in order to double my BTC stash, which generally isn't too difficult, rather than selling %'s when price doubles and trying to buy back lower when there is a correction. Both naturally being speculative strategies. But then again my HODL isn't intended as much more than money that's intended to be passed down to someone after I pass away, not for my own benefit. If price were to reach $200K to $300K, then sure, I'd be tempted to take profits for the first time in years though, can't deny that.


With that investment, I would of needed to feel 90-95% confident that price would continue to the upside, 50-80% is not enough, not by a longshot.


I don't think I'm ignoring it, I can see exactly what's going on; record inflows into ETFs, 9x the amount of available mining rewards being consumed in day, the real ability to move beyond a $1T market cap. It's all there in black and white, and if it continues as it has done for about a month, then sure price can easily sky rocket to the upside. My issue is simply TIME, as per usual. This is still a short-term concept, despite how positive it has been so far. The only thing that will change that is time, nothing else can. Apart from maybe a time-machine somehow, but they don't exist so there.


I meant by 2026, ie by end of 2025. But sure, a lot will depend on what happens this year, as well as obviously next year, as to whether 2026 will actually be a bear year. If the full-blown bull run starts this year, then 2025 would more likely be a bear year, if price is to increase dramatically and continue it's parabolic run etc. Until there is more clarity this year, I think the idea of 2026 is impossible to judge, even 2025 for now.


When was I was telling anyone to sell? That sounds like nonsense. Mainly, because I'd never tell anyone to sell. Even if I said something along the lines of it could be last chance to sell around $48K, prior to a drop to $30K, that still wouldn't be TELLING anyone to sell. It would be expressing an opinion. Sure, some people might have sold based on my opinion, but I'm not responsible for anyone's choices here either.

I already covered this above anyway, but just reiterating...


I've always been a long-term investor, much more of a hodler than you since 2018 as documented! The difference is I'm willing/able to separate a hodl position from a mid-term trade, likewise separate a trading account from a hodl. Sure there was initialy risk in doing that, but once you've made your initial back, you can gamble on the house for more satoshis. It's easy to say you shouldn't waste your time trading Bitcoin, but what if the only option you have is a short to mid-term trade, and you don't have the luxury of holding a position long-term. Has that ever been considered? This isn't even including the benefit of being able to 2x your capital, and then having X available as dry powder for Bitcoin (that you otherwise wouldn't have right?) I'm generally failing to see the lack of benefits here. And sure, this profit could end being invested at a higher price then you sold (god forbid!), it could even end up being $100K or $200K (mental!), but profit is profit. It didn't cost you anything to produce, only some time and convinction.


I think I've tried to explain this to you before: I don't bother explaining my HODL strategy, it should be self explanatory. It's called HODLING, there is literally nothing else to elaborate on. There are no charts worth referencing, and it's certainly not about selling 5% when price doubles and buying back when/if price corrects, I'll leave that to the traders such as yourself. Because even if you try and deny that you trade your stash, which personally I think is insane, but that's your choice, then this is exactly what you are doing. The fact you do it in a low-risk manner doesn't mean it's any less trading, only what would be considered low-risk trading. Not to mention you've no doubt made more trades in the past 12 months than me right now, which is iroinic, even if I wouldn't consider it particularly degenerate (even though I would always consider trading a hodl stash as degenerate to some degree). But then again, maybe you have an allocation of HODL and an allocation of trading for I know, rather than it all being in the same basket as it were.

As crazy as it might sound, I have more than one strategy though and always have, and these days it includes maybe a long-trade once every 2-4 years, as well as speculating on altcoins in order to increase sats once every 4 years. Because otherwise my strategy of "do nothing" would be somewhat boring and incomplete to put it simply, especially when there are ways to accumulate more Bitcoin without investing your own money as it were, but using profit instead.  If I was a degen trader, I'd be trying to catch every pump and every move, taking profits when price simply increases *cough cough *. Sure I used to trade a lot more in the past, but generally I've found that the less trades you make, based on higher capital and lowest risk possible, is just as profitable without all the effort. You can basically save a lot of time and effort with this low-frequency strategy, rather than a higher-frequency strategy, probably why I also haven't been on the forums as much either for that matter.

And sure, HODLing has always been the most profitable for me based on $$$ value increase, purely because it's around 85-95% of my holdings, but otherwise trading shitcoins has always been better % gains (against Bitcoin), but this only reflects 5-15% of my holdings. A degenerate would think "but if you make more money from trading, then you should trade most if not all of your stash right?" No, that's not me.

Yes, noted re: ETFs. Price go up and BTC into ETFs go up. No shit sherlock. What happens if price goes down though? Nobody knows, because it's never happened with ETFs being available, apart from the initial correction from $48K and ETF outflows became negative, but (I agree) that this is not conclusive of what will occur in the future. We are otherwise closer to March 2020 based on Bitcoin's cycles, which I still believe in. Obviously based on price, we are closer to Octotober 2021. To not acknoledge the subjectivity of these comparisons would be naive (I know I'm certainly not and remaining open minded).


Give it time at least, I wouldn't be bathing in confidence about anything quite yet. There is still a lot to prove here.


It's not what I prefer, parabolic price movement is - unsurprisingly - based on price movement, it has nothing to do with supply.
I'm surprised you aren't aware of that obvious fact, but never mind.,


It sounds like the same nonsense as in 2019, that you'd be lucky to get anything under $10K, when soon after price reached around $6K, back to support - as expected after a parabolic move.

It's possible that for now $60K could be the low before hitting $80K. If that happens, I'd happily raise my low / support level to $40K, because based on time, fib retracements and moving averages, that would be the low support, whether it reaches there or not. It's only really if price reaches $100K and goes beyond, then returning to below $50K becomes a bit less likely, especially if it happens this year.


Sounds convincing. It sounds like every other YouTube saying "it's probably not going to happen", before it does.


You could be right here, it could take until $80K, $90K, even $100K, but in 2024, I don't believe there won't be a correction that won't be on average around 50%. I still believe in the routine.


They are barely getting started, but it's not newbie FOMO? Right, ok... not even going to bother with this illogical argument.


You stumbled across the key point here, possibly without realising it: "automatic allocation". That works for the upside and well was the de-alloclation to the downside. It's more or less automated based on what's trading to the upside and what's trading to the downside, much less based on emotions or fundamentals in reality. Ideally investments are held for years, sure, but this isn't always the case.


Oh dear, it's concerning to here a long-time Bitcoiner believing that <$50K is now impossible, when I believe that $100K this year is more than possible. I was hoping there would be more or a balance between "UPonly" and "correction possibly", rather than uber-bullish mentality. I still remember when we used to consider every possible outcome, not be blinded by parabolic moves in the market.

Again, this type of mentality reminds me of 2019 parabolic move, that <$10K was now impossible, cos "Bitcoin is bullish", and remains highly speculative as an outlook to maintain.


Right, unless all the newbies bought Bitcoin ETFs in the past two months, or does that not count as newbie investors? We all know who's been buying BTC these past two months, and we can talk about the positives of ETF inflows until the cows come home. But what about the negatives? The newbie short-term holders? Are they exempt from scrutiny because they are mainly institutions? No.


Firstly, you're assuming I'm waiting for $30K or $35K, even $40K. WRONG! I'm waiting for price stability, not really bothered where that price comes from, but if you think that after 14 months of UPONLY that there will be no correction or sideways price action, for a considerable amount of time (like months), then you've gone insane. In 10+ years of Bitcoin, this has ALWAYS been the case. ETFs are not an excuse here.

Even in the "bull market years" of Bitcoin there is price stability that eventually arrives, usually because these UPONLY periods don't last longer than 12 months. This is uncharted territory for sure, but it won't exempt Bitcoin from going through the usually period of correction/sideways price action I don't believe, if anything, the longer it goes on for, the worse it will be. If it did become exempt from usual Bitcoin/market movements, then there will be worse things to come, as that would be official bubble territory that Bitcoin has never experienced before, and all hell could break lose. Fortunately, we're not there yet.


I'll add this to my diary of times where I was told that this time it's different, and check back in the future to see if it was actually different, as so far this hasn't been the case. But let's see!


Again, you're making unfounded assumptions. I was balancing my portfolio to be prepared for a correction, while also (predominantly) being prepared for continued upside (as has happened). But I forgive you, as despite not bothering to question these things, it's easy to make wrong assumptions about ones Bitcoin allocation. So no sadness here, as I said I'm not bothered about the degen 50%+ on top of that.


I had, I'm just being sensible and not basing 2 months of ETF trading with 15+ years of Bitcoin price history, that'd be ridiculous and insulting to Bitcoin itself. You're insulting Bitcoin here. Is it not fair and realistic to compare ETF inflows/outflows with price decline, not just UPONLY parabolic moves? That seems realistic to me, in order to see the balance of these things, that we've yet to see most importantly.

Of course ETF inflows will increase when price increases, it's correlated for good reason. We don't really know what happens in the inverse stage, and eventually we will find out.


Oh thanks, I hadn't heard that before. I mean obviously every uber-bull and YouTuber has been spouting >$100K in the next few hours or weeks, similar to late 2021, and it's all over mainstream media, but thanks for breaking the news to me again, I should really have faith in the mainstream media and influencer's positive opinion of Bitcoin. In fact, I should acknowledge more when they are bearish too! [/sarcasm]


Thank fuck, I was getting worried then. So $48K is possible after all? In that case, maybe we do go to $100K after all, if everyone hasn't become an UPONLY uber-bull.


Pure speculation, as has been the theme these past two months. Why don't we wait and find out? Because your theory is completely untested. The only comparison is how strong newbie hands are, and from 10+ years of history, they are weak as fuck. The weakest of them all in fact. Ideally this time it would be different, but all that "automated allocation" malarkey will probably play out in an automated way...


Long-short theory that newbies aren't weak hands? OK! Let's agree to disagree  


It was $48K without regrets. As I said, I'll let the degens trade the rest... they are the only ones trading >$50K right now. Hodlers aside (that obviously aren't trading hodl stash, like myself).

I even could of re-bought at $40K, but wasn't interested in such a speculative trade. Crazy I know, I don't care for degen pump chasing anymore! I've changed.


I'd rather buy stability right now than a correction, that could go deeper than $48K. So again WRONG!


I'm lacking objectivity? Did you even read your own words? Unlikely to ever go below $50K again, more like to reach $100K within two months? Objective much? Whereas I'm willing to acknowledge that $80K-$100K is possibly this year, even if I find it unlikely, I'm not ruling that out, and am prepared for such scenarios. Predominantly because I think it would all end in tears if happened before 2025.

I was never going to sell the majority of my stash, that would be insane right now. I was simply selling some scepticism, not even weakness. By holding on from >$50K I'd be putting my faith in the institutions that bought up the price, which I'm simply not willing to do. It's a personal choice, not much else here. I'm not expecting you to understand either, don't worry.


Fuck that, I'm glad I didn't buy $40K! Oh my god what the fuck are you talking about? My days of degenerate trading are much behind me (at least with Bitcoin). Still happy to trade shictoins for SATS, but I don't chase pumps anymore, it's a recipe for disaster. I wasn't selling $48K for a trade, that probably the first point you missed out of everything.


Just look at the ETF inflows, they weren't buying on the way down and waiting for up, they were waiting for up and buying on the way up, and still are. What you're talking about is traditional Bitcoin investors / retail investors, because buying the dip has historically always been profitable. Institutions quite simply don't have the same blind faith as us Bitcoiners, hence they wait for strength rather than buying weakness.

This is just a simple reality of institutions buying into Bitcoin, and quite frankly, we'll see how it plays out in the immediate term and well as long-term. Long-term I don't doubt it will be beneficial, but short-term, I remain far from convinced (mainly as there is nothing to prove otherwise so far, this is a short-term concept right now). Putting all your faith into the short-term goes against the fundamentals of Bitcoin imo. I refuse to be blinded by these so-called game-changing institutional on-ramps, I'll instead put my faith into Bitcoin, it's cycles, it's fundamentals, and every other technical aspect of it's existence. Not fucking ETFS.


How patronising, how could I be prepared for mainly down when I still hold the majority of my Bitcoin? Makes no sense. That's literally the idea of being prepared for upside (more so than downside)   Because ultimately, regardless of this year, I still believe Bitcoin will increase dramatically in 2025 (let's say by 2026), so I'm not rushing to offload my stash here. Just remaining overly cautious.

And again, don't assume you know what I should have been doing or wish I had done. I'm glad I didn't buy at $40K. I was drawn into this market threw degenerate gambling in August 2021 (degen season), which while was successful and paid off (who wasn't successful?), I realised it wasn't why I wanted to be invested in Bitcoin (it's not just about the cRaZy GaInZ). I'd prefer to exercise more caution these days, focus more on portfolio balancing and risk aversion, rather than chasing every pump and percentage that comes the markets way. Based on everything I'd said, I believe I have reason to be cautious right now, rather than being blinded by the ETF hype and inflows that are a short-term districations (as explained), and instead focus on Bitcoin and how it's always been.

Just to say we did basically just close the gap down to $59K already, and now in-between the Weekly and Monthly closing high prices, so for now it looks like nothing more than flushing out some over-leveraged long positions. Even with a -14% drop, there hasn't been any bearish follow through (below $60K), so it looks like a healthy correction from a charting point of view (on the face of it at least).

For some people this was probably the dip they were waiting for, given that price remains in a strong uptrend and has recently broken ATH. Naturally there is still the expectation of higher prices in the near future given new ATHs have already been made, even if initially rejected, at least above $60K that is. Whether than happens or not is a different story to the speculative belief of course, but usually plays out.

Sure, yesterday it was $63.3K, the day before was $44.7K. On February 18th it was even $23.5K. I was going by a general average, and the last month looks like it was around $50K give or take...

Philip will tell you that the calculation is complete nonsense, for many reason, and I won't argue over that. It's more-or-less based on price of mining with non-renewable energy (basically right now, you could mine virtually anywhere and in any way and be profitable, cost of equipment aside). So naturally those mining using renewable energy are barely effected, if at all, as there mining costs are 50-75% less I imagine, but for miners relying on non-renewable energy, they will no doubt be switching off machines post-halving (at current mining cost), as per every halving. Others will simply go out of business for good.

Just please don't cry if you get rekt. Confusion is OK, but at least don't pretend like there were alternative theories to hitting $1 million per coin next week.

So what are people's thoughts? Ironically, despite still expecting an inevitable correction (what goes up must come down before going back up again), today's bearish candle I don't find very concerning. For one, it's the first sell candle in weeks, since the move from $40K, so isn't exactly conclusive of "the top's in" mentality. For now, it's an orderly corrective candle, with further potential upside. Just look back at October 2021 with ATH making. Firstly there was a new ATH followed by an immediate strong bearish doji selling candle on the Weekly, that was followed by another 3 weeks of upside to make another slightly higher ATH. So now that the ATH has been pierced, I think it's more likely to be re-tested and broken again, rather than the correcting starting from here. That said...

My thought on re-testing $30K haven't changed much, especially the more parabolic the price has gone. I'm closer to thinking a low could be around $35K rather than $30K, as now a BULLISH macro retracement would be around $36K (0.382 fib retracement from low to high), as opposed to the more bearish full retracement back down to $28K. Felt the need to capitalise there, to specify that one price level would be bullish, the other would be borderline bearish, but otherwise neutral. Ie, starting an uptrend again from scratch type level, but also not conclusive of being bearish, even if it'd "feel" very bearish to many.

Overall, I see the parabolic from from $40K to ~$70K as complete over-leveraged puff and newbie FOMO from ETFs. Of course the ETFs are "good" (look at the price!), but many of these investors have no idea experience of Bitcoin's volatility that isn't one directional. If we are to go below the ETF opening price of $48K, I think there will be a lot "jumping ship" from more conservative investors, rather than further speculation. Bare in mind these TradFi clowns aren't used to a -30% correction in a matter of days or weeks, and they'd typically see it as extremely bearish, even though $48K level would be the support level for continued bullish momentum. This, fundamentally more than anything, is why I don't trust the current rally above $50K. It's based on hopes and dreamss, not reality imo, and relying on newbies to have strong hands.

So I am sitll a bit torn over the "considerable correction" theory, as it may just be a re-test of $50K level and stablise from there (again this would be IMMEDIATELY BULLISH not bearish). My other concern is surrounding the halving... ironically. With price so high, so is the average mining cost, around $50K at the moment. At this rate, there will be the inevitable "miner capitulation" (reduction in mining power) with average price immediately spiking to $100K. I think we've generally averted the uber bearish miner selling scenario, because with price so high and rewards about to drop in half, miners are able to sell at a reasonable price to cover costs (especially those who will need to switch off machines in the coming months, until a more favourable mining cost is available, with the reduction of difficulty etc). Naturally the longer-term effects will be bullish, like we've seen every halving, but in reality the immediate effects are never bullish, but more of a stabilising effect for price (at best...)

More to the point, every halving there is at least one significant drop of mining power, due to reduced rewards, usually a few instances depending on where price has come from, which often leads to either decrease in price or otherwise sideways stability, as difficulty drops and the network has to "re-calibrate" the change (see 2020 and 2016). So I'm not expecting much different here, unlike a lot of other speculative theories knocking around, from $100K within X amount of days or my estimation of dropping to around $30K; the halving is never "priced in", as the effects of reduced mining rewards only takes effect once the rewards are actually halved. Not forgetting that it takes some time, usually a few months, for the supply to "dry up", if the demand and supply remains the same. Obviously if the demand remains high, like with the ETFs, the effects of the halving could be more immediate than usual, but only time will tell. For example if we hold $50K until the halving, the effects would likely be immediate bullish based on current demand.

Overall, just like $48K was the "treshold" for me to no longer consider the move from $15.5K as a 2019-style dead cat bounce, it will also be the level for me to consider the immediate uptrend to be over if we break below, especially now this is the opening ETF price effectively. Probably others would lower to this $44K (Weekly closing highs) or even $40K, but personally I think below $48K it could well be too late to directly change the course of events. It's specifically were TradFi investors will enevitably turn into nervous nellies, if price is approaching their entry points. Bare in mind most of the investors are no different than Bitcoin speculators, and the first correction each of these speculators experiences is typified by fear, uncertainty, and doubt; thus leads to a lot of panic selling. So I'm certainly not putting my faith into these newbies to be strong hands if price corrects beyond what they feel comfortable with. Obviously any "smart Bitcoin investor" would simply increase position if price dropped further, for example buying $40K if you're average was $50K, etc, but these Bitcoin ETF newbies won't be smart in my opinion, they are still complete newbies to the Bitcoin market, and more importantly prefer to buy strength than weakness. So if you want to put faith in these newbies (that can be translated into price >$50K, then feel free, but I won't be participating in this facade).

Also, as just a mere reality check of Bitcoin pyschology here, since when did complete noobs get to throw money at Bitcoin near an ATH and get to ride a 50% move to the upside within a couple of months with zero consequences? I don't believe these institutional investors are any smarter than Bitcoiners in my opinon, and if anything, when push comes to shove, they will have much weaker hands. They want Bitcoin because of price appreciation and as a store of value. If that store of value is to the downside, I'm certain they won't be interested until it presents itself as a store of value / price appreciation asset again.

PS - I'm not salty that I sold at $48K either, I still hold the majority of Bitcoin, just simply have a decent amount of "dry powder" for a correction (for probably the first time ever). If I didn't sell $48K to the upside, I'd be selling it to the downside, and looking at price as I type, I think that downside may already be sooner than we think. Also if not obvious, I'm happy to ride a 250% move over a year during a recovery stage, I don't care about the final 50% parabolic move to the upside, I'll leave that to the degenerative gamblers to take advantage of, or get rekt by.

Locking thread now that the market has made it's decision. Personally while I wouldn't mind a pre-halving rally, it does make me wonder what will happen after the halving, if price is to continue rallying to the upside leading into it. Either way, I still think we're overdue consolidation, even if it's simply sideways rather than to the downside, for somewhere between 3-9 months, prior to a 2025 bull market.

The only question that remains is where this consolidation comes from, whether it's after reaching $50K, $60K or even a new ATH...