its good to see that some people like yourself rely on indicators to base the price. so keep it up. unlike others that use high school level terms such as 'supply and demand' (only 2 indicators) and have never put anything into a chart. to understand what causes supply and what causes demand. they don't look below the surface.
i was going to write a long reply to your answer. but to answer your question ill just leave you with this question
imagine a country that stopped printing money.. what would happen eventually.
I think charts are a very useful tool insofar as they facilitate data analysis. But as far as candlesticks, fibonacci retracements and other pseudo-scientific charting methods, I'm not a fan.
My intent in asking upon what the value of Bitcoin would be based after the last block was mined was simply to point out that it is inevitable that the price of Bitcoin become detached from the cost of mining sooner or later. The scarcity of Bitcoins, as you allude to in your question above, will certainly be a factor. So long as the Bitcoin economy continues to grow, so shall the price of Bitcoin.
Whereas you may see the price of Bitcoin being based on the cost of mining, I actually see it the other way around. I see the price of Bitcoin generating demand for mining. The greater the value placed on Bitcoin by the markets (through the process of supply and demand), the more profitable mining becomes, and thus we see the difficulty level rise. According to this model, after the last Bitcoin is mined, we should see the value fluctuate primarily in response to the demand.
If I am correct, then the network hash power will actually lag the price of Bitcoin somewhat, rather than lead it (since it takes miners time to respond to the changing value). It would be an interesting exercise to see if this hypothesis is supported by the data.