Inspired by this discussion, I thought a bit about the possibility of a Bitcoin ATM machine which does not need any entity which "custodies" your Bitcoins.

Custodianship by a Bitcoin ATM company is the reason why most ATMs require KYC information (like an ID scan), and that of course takes away all the privacy of an ATM.

I had imagined first an ATM which buys and sells the Bitcoins on Bisq (or any P2P exchange). But that is also still not non-custodial, because these P2P exchanges operate with bank transfers and similar payment methods, and thus the ATM company would have to manage a bank account to create the buy/sell orders on the P2P exchange.

But I actually imagined a possible model for a non-custodial ATM. It would be however a quite complicated machine and for sure expensive to build.

The idea is that the ATM could work as a cash exchange: there would be several compartments with the cash inside the machine (like lockers or vaults), where people could deposit cash (which would of course be checked against counterfeit money). They then could set up an order on a screen on a P2P exchange, with their Bitcoin address.

Two things could happen now:

- If the order is filled, the buyer would get the Bitcoins. The seller would get a code for the ATM and would have access to the compartment where the buyer deposited the cash.
- If the order is not filled after a time frame (e.g. 24 hours) the order would be cancelled, and the buyer would get the code for the ATM and could withdraw the cash again.

Thus, the company operating the ATM would be a cash custodian, not a Bitcoin custodian, because the Bitcoins never leave the buyers/sellers addresses (only they can use the Bisq escrow). In some countries depending on the specific regulation that wouldn't make much of a difference, while in others, they could perhaps operate like lockers at train stations.

Dumb idea? Does that already exist? It's only a theoretical concept, ideas are welcome

I agree with that take if this means it's basically a mass psychology phenomenon and an effect of a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the more people believing in it, the stronger this kind of cycle becomes.

Yes, this is also my interpretation. The question here is about the timing. I.e. one had too look for patterns which hint at a price top every four years approximately (2013-2017-2021 and potentially 2025).

Until now I don't see a "technical" explanation.

- Miner behaviour tends to be pro-cyclic, but not taking into account halvings but instead price movements. Miners react to price, not the other way around, and difficulty changes always compensate for an eventual reward reduction (in purchasing power) due to halvings.
- The scarcity pattern isn't modified substantially by halvings anymore because miners only make up less than 1% of the daily BTC sales on exchanges.
- An alternative explanation for the 4 year cycle is a dependency on the cycles of cycles in the fiat economy, such as the M2 expansion, but it would be pure coincidence that it's every 4 years.

Lost Bitcoins and vulnerable coins where public keys are stored on chain [1], are seen, by some, as a threat to Bitcoin due to the development of quantum computing. Jameson Lopp has proposed a hard deadline for migration, a strategy I don't agree with for several reasons.

As an alternative to a "deadline", there may be a softer way to force a migration of coins which are vulnerable to quantum computing attacks: financial incentives.


An idea (it is still not "technical" enough to post it in the Development & Technical discussion forum):

Imagine the transaction fees to move vulnerable coins get higher and higher, while "safe" coins aren't affected.

Wouldn't this make people who have parked old coins force to migrate if the cost would be higher at each difficulty period for example?

Of course the technical realization would be a challenge. There could be a high weight discount for coins migrating from P2PK, P2MS etc. to a safe alternative, or even a new transaction format to which people should migrate to (not necessarily with post-quantum cryptography).

But in this thread I would like to ask mainly if this idea would make sense.

Would people migrate? Would they cease to re-use addresses? Would exchanges switch to methods without address reuse for their hot/cold wallets? What if people do not move?

Quantum thieves taking years to "crack" the coins would then also be punished somewhat, although the fee increase would need to be quite high to them really feeling that punishment.

---

[1] Vulnerable coins are coins from P2PK, P2MS,  key-path enabled P2TR and re-used addresses; it could look difficult to "differentiate" re-used from not-reused addresses at a first glance but I think it would be possible, it's however likely that it would be computationally costly to verify (e.g. with a separate "exposed public key database").

ATMs are only CEXes for offline use. So I don't see that much of an advantage of them regarding decentralization than in the case of non-KYC regular exchanges. The only advantage is that you pay / get cash, so you don't need to provide the bank data.

It could in theory be possible to build an ATM which is not connected to a CEX but to a P2P platform like Bisq or Robosats. This would perhaps indeed be a step towards decentralization, because on P2P exchanges -- even if they have no explicit KYC/AML policies -- you provide personal data to your trade counterparty if you use a bank-based method (at least your bank account number / IBAN will show up). On that ATM that would not be necessary, the bank data would be provided by the ATM operator. But the necessity of such an operator to exist still means there is a single point of failure.

There are some more unconventional methods I haven't seen massively used. The most promising one for me is the trade of disk space vs. Bitcoin. You would, in this case, pay with an "asset" (HDD/SDD space) which is not connected to personal data; if you hide your IP address via Tor you could even be very difficult to trace. Altcoin-based platforms like Sia and Storj have explored this method, but it never became really popular.

In general of course trading digital goods/services not tied to a bank account -- e.g. gift cards -- would be the "most decentralized" way to go for me. However also here we have a problem: platforms like OpenBazaar which allow such a trade in a decentralized fashion are currently stalled or discontinued.

Just for the records: If Hal Finney was Satoshi (and many think so) - Finney was predicting and appearantly not opposed to Bitcoin banks, i.e. platforms which would issue their own currency backed by BItcoin. He believed that this would be the final fate of BTC and the solution for the scaling problem.

Basically all centralized platforms we know today -- CEXes, centralized wallets, ETFs, payment processors -- are very similar to Finney's Bitcoin bank concept. While they don't issue a "currency" (that would be an altcoin), they issue IOUs which may or not be 100% backed by Bitcoin.

AFAIK the Satoshi account on Bitcointalk hasn't participated in the discussion after Hal Finney's post about that concept, this was in late 2010 and Satoshi had already become less active.

Of course, but I don't see that much of a big difference for the evaluation of the potential price upside. Let's speculate BTC becomes a massive reserve asset (e.g. 20% of all BTC held in "national reserves" and 20% in corporate reserves) and goes to 500k-1M BTC in the next 10 years or so. This means we'll have a massively higher potential volume of sellers/buyers at this level. There may be less BTC to buy, but the value in USD and purchasing power wil lbe much higher. But at all levels there will be people willing to sell, because they made a decent profit, for example they were able to buy a house or a car, or companies that were able to invest in an expansion. So we will at all levels always have some kind of minimum number of sellers.

The exact dynamics have to be seen (this is also a response to your last paragraph). For example it could be possible that if e.g. Lummins' US reserve project is approved and other important countries also make similar moves, we could see BTC skyrocket with a x2 or x3 instantly (in a few weeks/months) due to anticipation. But that at the same time would again trigger profit taking, and perhaps the buys for the reserve would not trigger the market to the upside that much (Saylor's buys for example don't really move the market.) So I expect ups and downs even in this phase which would be the "mother of all bubbles" some are dreaming with

But then there is another reason why I think that a massive reserve would have a price ceiling: the expectation of an "endgame". The endgame for Bitcoin would be a relatively stable price, when all buyers who wanted BTC already had bought (e.g. several big countries have already an advanced BTC reserve), and there are few potential buyers left. Once for example the US reserve is close to completion, people will probably expect that this endgame is near, and could be tempted to sell. This would not mean necessarily a big crash but simply a situation where the scarcity equation becomes different again.

Anyway, who knows. Perhaps you're correct, the endgame could be so far ahead that it's not relevant for the discussion, and a lot of all this dynamic is mass psychology, and thus it's difficult to predict. We can close this point of the discussion.

I don't think it's really low and thus I disagree. For an asset which isn't that productive and only speculative it's quite high. There will be imo always a ceiling for those "unproductive" assets because there is also a floor for "productive" assets like stocks. There will be always people willing to invest in something more closely connected to the economy's wellbeing. and that's also a good thing And there is only a limited market for assets meant for saving, due to the time preference (people like to enjoy their life and not only think about the future).

Of course it's artificial, but there's no difference with Bitcoin (let's ignore premined scams). The challenge is to create genuine demand, and most altcoins fail terribly at that, while Bitcoin does a lot better. But in the end this artificial scarcity is determining a part of the supply dynamic, and thus I think we can compare altcoins with Bitcoins here. IMO the difference is the price level.


I agree, I only wanted to clarify some points, but I think we simply disagree in some details.

I guess what you're referring to here is that miners in some periods of the bull market sell much less than what they earn, creating more shortage. And when they start to sell (way after the halvings?), then they could trigger a crash.

There are charts with estimations of miner holdings, like this one from TradingView:



We see that there may be some cyclic behavior but on a quite low level. In late 2019 there was a major increase of miner holdings (of several hundreds of thousands of coins) but that coincided with a decrease in Bitcoin price (in mid-2019, there was a small bubble up to $14,000, and later that year BTC fell again below 10,000$). It looks like miners could indeed have accelerated that dump, as after September their holdings decrease "back to normal". In most years after 2019 we don't see any major changes. A small "dip" in miner holdings occurred in mid-2021, but that was probably Chinese miners selling after quitting due to the mining ban.

Thus, I'm not convinced there's a pattern which drives miners to sell more than normal in the periods when Bitcoin crashes after the bubble and ATH. One could argument that the reward decrease due to the halving may force them to sell more after some time, but I don't think that timeframe makes up more than a year.

Yes, that's another discussion, in another thread I found out that while there is some correlation, if we take into account GDP (and look at the variable M2 divided by GDP) this correlation becomes very weak.

In this post I wasn't looking for a replacement for a wallet, but for a block explorer - only with a little bit more privacy. If you use a block explorer, you also have to trust the provider of the service to deliver you the correct data. And of course the type of service I was thinking about should provide you all necessary data to check that, including blocks / block headers all the way down to the genesis block.

Ideally such a service should provide a web interface where you could enter the timeframe (e.g. you remember that you should have received a transaction between day X and day Y, so you would download all the blocks in-between). So the service provider doesn't have to know the exact blocks. Once the blocks are downloaded, you could then cut off the connection to the Internet and process the data offline via a JavaScript interface, e.g. searching for addresses and transactions. Or directly process it with command line tools or so.

The reason why this would be more privacy friendly than a SPV wallet is of course that on the SPV wallet the block data are on the server and you query addresses/transactions (which are then known by the server), while in the service I was thinking of, the server would only known the blocks you're requesting. Indeed technically it would be similar to BIP 157/158, only presented in another way and with more data analysis features.

---

I've looked a bit about privacy notices of some block explorers (five highest ranked on Google plus walletexplorer which I checked recently):

- httos://walletexplorer.com - shares all data with Chainalysis, basically no privacy
- https://blockstream.info - no separate privacy notice for the block explorer, according to Privacy Policy may share data with third parties, probably also bad privacy
- https://blockchain.com - Privacy Policy Section 7 says that they share data with a lot of different service providers including "providers of KYC or AML services". Probably bad privacy.
- https://btcscan.org - Privacy Policy (for all Redot services, no separate notice for block explorer) - mentions "compliance" and "research" companies as some of the parties they transmit data. Looks also bad for privacy.
- https://bitaps.com - Privacy policy doesn't mention that they transfer data to third parties, but also doesn't deny it. Quite unclear privacy.
- https://blockexplorer.one - Privacy Policy mentions GDPR (European data protection guideline), says that they don't transmit personal information to third parties, but they mention "Controllers" which could process data. Also a bit unclear.

May continue this list if there's interest.

Für längere Zeiträume sicher nicht. Aber den einen oder anderen Altcoin-Pump mitzunehmen, das machen doch denke ich einige. Gerade so kommen ja auch die Altcoin-Seasons zustande (auch die kleineren, wie Ende letzten Jahres). ETH unter $2000 und besonders unter 0.02 BTC war halt schon ein richtig gutes Sonderangebot, und wer dort zugriff hat jetzt seine Bitcoins um 50% steigern können (zur Zeit liegt ETH in BTC auf ca. 0.03 BTC, der Tiefststand lag bei 0.018).

Untypisch für einen Sonntag scheint der Bitcoinkurs sich um fast 2% zu erholen. Vielleicht ein Indiz dafür, dass die Bullen auch im kurzfristigen Trend noch nicht aufgegeben haben, trotz einiger bärischen Prognosen wie der, die ich vorhin verlinkt hatte.

Ah yeah, you're correct, sorry. I had only checked transactions and blocks at Blockchair, never addresses

Now okay, one could argue that if they respect their own Privacy Policy, they display third-party "risk scores" as a service to the user, without transmitting visitor information (IP adress, browser fingerprint etc.) to these third parties. But that's where the "vague points" in the Privacy notice I mentioned here -- that they only use personal data to improve their services -- could be a loophole to indeed transmit this information in real-time to the risk score analyzing companies, because their risk scores "improve" the service of Blockchair.

Even if they don't do that, at least it is a big temptation for the users to click on these risk score ads, which open the chain analysis companies' websites -- and I think if you do that with your own addresses, then that's the moment they'll have the visitor information they wanted.

I can totally understand your discomfort and that would be also a reason to not recommend Blockchair.

BTW, I'll add recommended block explorers to the OP from now on (only really convincing one until now is Mempool, Blockchair may be better than average but needs a warning).

And @all: I know of course that the best way is to host a full node and run a self-hosted block explorer. But that's not the topic of this thread, I'm searching for services with a "better than average" privacy.

Insgesamt ähnelt das Jahr 2025 bisher dem Jahr 2017. Nur Januar und Februar waren vertauscht, und dass bisschen August müsste man bisher ignorieren ...

Natürlich muss man die Volatilitätsabschwächung bedenken. Sollte sich aber 2017 wirklich wiederholen, könnte aber dann noch ein Pump von 20% anstehen, also das Anklopfen an die von einigen ersehnten 150k. Und das Jahresende erst ... (Aus heutiger Sicht sieht es dagegen eher nach einer Abkühlung aus.)

Auch interessant, dass es seit Mitte 2022 keine Drops von über 17,x%+ mehr auf Monatssicht gegeben hat (das ist natürlich auch Zufall da immer vom 1. bis zum 31. gerechnet wird und die Crashs und Pumps sich nicht an unsere Monatseinteilung halten, aber imo schon aussagekräftig). Die Preisentwicklung der roten Monate sieht also immer weniger "scary" aus. Klar kann das sich beim nächsten "richtigen" Bärenmarkt ändern, aber vielleicht gibt es dann noch einen -20% oder -25% Monat aber keinen -35% mehr.

PS: Hier gibt es eine Vorhersage eines Falls auf 100.000 (Arthur Hayes). Dass das schon als "düstere Prognose" bezeichnet wird, ist ein weiterer Hinweis darauf, dass Bitcoin viel "reifer" geworden ist und vielleicht die ganz, ganz großen Abstürze immer seltener werden.

I don't think that is meaningless. Of course you have to compare the previous block hash included in the first block of your chunk with several sources (e.g. at all block explorers you know if you're paranoid ). But if you know e.g. that you received a Bitcoin transaction one day before, but want to check the correct amount without having to fire up a SPV wallet (which potentially may expose you to Electrum server privacy attacks) then such a service may be quite neat as you can check all blocks of the last 24 hours approximately. You do all the analysis on your own device, without exposing the addresses you own, and without needing a full node.

Also if you want to do some onchain analysis of certain blocks on your own (e.g. to look for hints which addresses could belong to a single wallet) and you know approximately the timeframe where you're searching, that would also be an use case for such a service.

In the end, that kind of service could basically enable everything a normal block explorer can (even what walletexplorer.com does, i.e. search for "connected" addresses which may belong to the same wallet), only that you need slightly more resources on your device, but far away from the resources you need for a full node.

This is what I mention as an "advantage" of Bitcoin countered by different demand dynamics which may favour gold. I looked at the supply/demand equilibrium, and for me, the difference isn't as massive and thus IMO it's legit to bring up both points ("advantage" in supply-side market dynamic vs. advantage in demand-side dynamic) in a comparison Bitcoin <-> Gold.

I'm not much a fan of gold by the way, only that my understanding of the situation is that the "perfect" inelasticity does not necessarily make that much of a difference, an imperfect inelasticity with some potential low supply increase (as an effect of a price increase -> incentive increase for gold miners) may be simply good enough to ensure a similar "scarcity potential". In the case of gold, mining-added supply is already quite low, around 1% per year if I take the first Google hits, and that's at record price highs.

This is by the way also one point why I would not be 100% opposed to a Bitcoin tail emission if it is low enough (similar to Monero's, for example) and it is really necessary to ensure a stable security budget (I would still prefer to keep the 21 million limit). I'm sure we'd disagree in this point, judging by your last post here, but that's ok.

I had some discussions about that in the early altcoin era, when some people argued that a cryptocurrency where 100% of the supply is distributed at the start and then it has 0% supply inflation and miners are incentived only by transaction fees, would lead to even more scarcity than Bitcoin's (where the supply is limited but there's still [decreasing] emission until ~2140) and thus to a even a higher valuation. The reality is different: today, none of the 100% distributed coins is even in the top 20 altcoins afaik, maybe not even in the top 100.

My own understanding of that situation is that perfectly inelastic assets tend to be more volatile, but not necessarily higher priced. If they experience that parabolic price increase when scarcity increases a lot and only few people want to sell and also no new supply is added (or only a tinly bit), then at some point there will be also massive profit taking just because the profit is as high, until a point everybody wants to anticipate that sell move. We've seen that with BTC and several altcoins, several times, and I don't think strategic reserves change that dynamic.

The Blockchair privacy notice indeed looks quite good, at least I have not seen any red flag, although some points are a bit vague (those ponts about that they use the data only to improve their service). I noticed also they are linked from some open source wallets, so they may have indeed a quite good reputation.

Thus I don't really understand @dkbit98's post:

Can you link to some sources about that? No issue, I only think the contrast between your post and for example @ranochigo's is quite notable

Mempool.space's privacy notice is similar to Blockchair's, perhaps even a bit more coherent and with less unimportant information, so I may give them some more "points" in my "privacy score".

The entry I can't absolutely understand here is that one:

Arkham, isn't that one of the "bad guys" exactly?

---

By the way, I wonder if a service exists which lets you query a full node freely on a web interface, i.e. where you can download chunks of blocks instead of querying addresses, and then search the data offline for e.g. transactions and addresses. I guess some block explorers may allow that via API but a web interface would be nice for "quick and fast" queries.

Bin mir momentan etwas unschlüssig, wohin die Reise geht.

Auf der einen Seite könnte man langsam wieder von einer möglichen "Bullen-Enttäuschung" sprechen, da bei mehreren Versuchen kein ATH verzeichnet wurde und der Preis dann etwas abrutschte. Da der Preis immer noch "sehr gut" im Vergleich zum Trend ist, sind dann vielleicht einige am Auscashen. Das wäre ein Zeichen für eine eher bärische Entwicklung der nächsten Wochen.

Andererseits fehlt bisher ein kathartischer Crash der auch Altcoins durch die Bank (meist mit sehr hohen Verlusten) mitnimmt und der oft das Ende einer bullischen Phase ankündigt. So wie im Februar 2025 oder auch im März 2024. Das kann natürlich noch kommen.

Klassische 50/50 Situation also

ETH kam halt von einem sehr tiefen Niveau (Sturz auf 30% des ATH!). Wahrscheinlich hat der Markt kapiert, dass das eine Überreaktion (wohl auf die "Gefahr" von Solana) war.

The problem is where to draw the limit between "real" demand and demand driven by "irrational behavior"?

There are also lots of speculative users who try to ride bullish and bearish waves, either being long or short, but with a plan. There are even those who try to capitalize from the FOMO and fear of others, showing similar buying/selling behavior at a first glance. Are they regular users of an "efficient market" or not?

Anyway the point of this thread is not to question that there is a long time trend driven by scarcity. If Bitcoin is perceived as a "scarce" asset, and demand is rising faster than the supply increases, then a long term price growth is a logical consequence.

The question here is about the timing the "Halving Cycle theory" supporters alude to. That the "cycle" in the popular opinion always lasts 4 years (even if we had only two complete 4-year cycles, the previous one was shorter), just like the distance between halvings. That the peak bull market euphoria with new ATHs starts several months after the halving (which, to note, seemingly wasn't the case in the 2024/25 cycle, as we had an ATH previous to the halving in April).

And these theories, imo, are really bad at explaining the crashes after the demand.

In other words, what I question is:

- that the post-halving FOMO is a "natural consequence" of the halving cycle,
- but the crash after the maximum FOMO is "irrational behaviour".

IMO both FOMO and crashes are either irrational or have to be explained by the halving cycle theory

We recently had a discussion in the German subforum about the data sources chain analysis companies use to associate addresses to know which belong to the same wallets and/or users. One of these sources are block explorers: if you query different addresses repeatedly from the same IP address on, it is likely that the block explorer sells this data ("visitor information") to chain analysis companies, or is run by the company themselves, as a repeated query of the same address from the same IP address (or with the exact same browser fingerprint) is a strong hint that the addresses belong to the same user.

What I want to ask is if there are block explorers which are known to respect your privacy and don't transmit this visitor information to third parties.

Best case would be of course that they either don't store the IP addresses of their visitors at all (except for server logs which then are deleted periodically), but it would be also interesting if they simply declare (e.g. in their Terms of Service / Privacy Notice) that they don't transmit data to third parties.

Of course the block explorer could still cheat and sell the data anyway, above all if it's a relatively new service, but if a block explorer is quite established already, declares this and isn't found to be "cheating" that way for years, they could become relatively trustworthy.

Anyway of course one should always use block explorers with Tor or VPNs. But even then, human errors occur, so a privacy-respecting service would be better even if you already use these tools.

---

List of recommended block explorers

- https://mempool.space - good privacy policy, no other red flags

Less recommended - be cautious

- https://blockchair.com - privacy policy looks good at a first glance, but there are some vague points, and they display third party risk scores for addresses (if you click on them, you'll be taken to chain analysis websites transmitting them your data!)

I'd love this thread to stay alive a bit longer

Let's continue with two South American cities I don't know personally but friends have gone there:

Cusco, Peru

Image credit: Martin St-Amant - Wikipedia - CC-BY-SA-3.0, Original at Wikimedia Commons

Also known as Cuzco, the city is both well known for its stunning baroque architecture and for its closeness to the Macchu Picchu ruins, the most famous pre-Columbian city in the Andes. Cuzco was both the capital of the Inca Empire and an important urban center in Colonial peru, so you'll find a lot of history in the city and its surroundings. Despite of having only about 400,000 inhabitants, Cuzco is very touristy, so it's not too surprising that Bitcoin is accepted in some places. I have found two accomodation options on BTCmap and a couple of eateries, fortunately most of them close together in the city center. See BTCmap.

São Paulo, Brazil


Image credit: Agent010, CC-BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons

One of South America's most underrated cities, São Paulo is perhaps the only true cosmopolitan metropolis on the continent, way ahead of Buenos Aires or Rio de Janeiro. People from nearly all nations of the world have immigrated into that bustling city of 20 million people which has even a famous neighborhood dominated by Japanese culture (mind you, not many countries are as far away from Brazil as Japan). The city center has nice historic buildings. But probably it's the skyscapers near Avenida Paulista and vibrant culture and nightlife of neighborhoods like Vila Madalena or Bixiga which make a trip to this city really special. Regarding Bitcoin, like Buenos Aires it has relatively few accomodation options (mostly flats in the Vila Olimpia area) but there are plenty of restaurants, bars, shops and other businesses accepting Bitcoin. And: This is the city where one of the first Bitcoin ETFs was traded, as early as in 2021! BTCmap location.

Of course I have my own theories about the Bitcoin cycles, and that's what I wrote in the parts of the post you quoted. But here the question for me is another one: how can the bear markets fit with the halving cycle theory people like Plan B propagate?

An periodically overheating long term trend isn't necessarily related to halvings at all. It can be simply caused by herd behavior alone, for example due to periods where Bitcoin gets more attention. The halvings can play a role here too, because at least in the last couple of years they always get mentioned in the media and thus if Bitcoin is running "under the radar" during that time, it can bring new attention and thus new investors into BTC.

But that's not what the halving cycle folks are saying, they think that the decreasing miner supply is crucial for the price (supply/demand) evolution. And for me, that may have been true in 2012 and 2016 because miners were the biggest sellers back then, but now probably other factors (hodlers selling & demand evolution) are stronger.

Ich habe bisher keine dieser Indikatoren wirklich genutzt, aber da du noch gar keine Antwort bekommen hast, habe ich mir mal die drei am höchsten gerankten in deiner Liste angeschaut:

- Ahr 999: Vergleicht eine logarithmische Regression mit einem langen Moving Average (SMA200). Könnte man also ähnlich wie den Rainbow Chart ansehen. Grundsätzlich ist es schon eine sinnvolle Strategie. Wenn ich aber mir den Wert dieses Charts anschaue, dann werden die Peaks immer niedriger, d.h. der Index bildet meiner Meinung nach die Volatilitätsabschwächung nicht genügend ab.
- Pi Cycle Top: Hier wird ein kürzerer mit dem Multiplen eines längeren MAs verglichen. Das heißt, statt einer "theoretischen Kurve" wird da die reale Langzeit-Preisentwicklung als Trend genommen. Kurz gesagt "steigt der Preis auf das Doppelte des Langzeittrends, sollte man verkaufen". Auch hier denke ich aber, dass die Volatilitätsabschwächung den Indikator immer weniger brauchbar machen dürfte, denn das Doppelte des Langzeittrends wird wahrscheinlich immer seltener oder gar nicht erreicht.
- Puell Multiple. Der wird öfters in Analysen erwähnt und vergleicht die aktuellen Einkünfte der Miner mit vergangenen Einkünften. Er soll also besagen, wie wahrscheinlich es ist, dass Miner massiv gehaltene Coins abstoßen. Ich würde diesen Chart als Top-Indikator eher nicht so sinnvoll finden, da Miner inzwischen nicht mehr so relevante Marktteilnehmer sind wie früher, ihre Coins machen nur noch einen geringen Prozentsatz der Verkaufsorders aus.

Interessant fand ich dass die ETF to BTC Ratio als Indikator angegeben wird, der scheint schon recht nahe an einem Top zu sein. Ich vermute, dass damit die Zahl der BTC gemeint ist, die in ETFs gehalten sind, im Vergleich zur Gesamtmenge (der aktuelle Wert 4.98% deutet darauf hin). Leider gibt es da keinen richtigen Chart dazu und auch keine Erklärung warum das ein Cycle Top Indikator sein soll. Vielleicht ist damit gemeint, dass eine gewisse "Sättigung" erreicht werden kann, wenn zu viele ETFs gekauft werden? Das Dumme ist hier aber, dass man keinen Vergleich mit der Vergangenheit hat. 2021 gab es zwar außerhalb der USA ein paar ETFs, die waren aber kaum relevant.

Vielleicht schaue ich mir in den nächsten Tagen noch ein paar weitere an ..