[edited out]
it's no longer people with much insight or knowledge about the currency or markets in general.
oh gawd..
you trying to make another overall
(wrong and likely irrelevant) assessment regarding how the BTC market participants have changed?
Exactly. Not so much how investors have changed, but how they have always changed, continue to change, and how that could influence price and the future of Bitcoin's cycles.
I understand that's not to everyone's taste, but personally I prefer to wake up and smell the coffee (if it's getting hot) before it get's burn, while using a percolator.
Bare in mind that around 50% of investors are currently new, so obviously this changes the dynamic, whether you like it or not.
Interesting thing about bitcoin is that there are always new investors. Yes... that's true.. but still a BIG so what.. at least so far in the ways that you are supposedly wanting to use such information.
Many words for you then 👇👇👇
Willy Woo has touched on this quite a lot, based on the blockchain data available, as well as exchange data. It's part of his argument for ending up in a super cycle based on the 100% increase in Bitcoiners every 2 years. Personally, I find it interesting, even if others do not.
Sure.. Willy Woo has good analysis and a variety of good arguments.. does not make him right about specfics regarding a supercyle.. even if he has some decently good ideas.
I'm not completely convinced either. The
10-month 11-month wide trading range could easily end up like 2013, where after roughly 7.5 months of an even wider range $50 to $250, price finally moved up by 4x. So a range half that wide would still give a new ATH target at 2x the previous (ignoring the fake-out) of around $135 for example, just short of current logarithmic growth target most notably.
One theory that sticks in mind however is that
max pain could now be a supercycle, which is probably the opposite of what most people consider it to be, thinking it's the never-ending bull run which it's not. This would be due to the number of longer-term investors who want a blow off top in order to take profits and re-invest at lower levels, even the newbies like the idea more these days, as we've seen this pattern consistently so far, so becomes harder to ignore. Each time it has happened, it becomes more likely that people want to be a part of it, it's natural psychology. Being a sheep instead of the bull basically, being the one that traps as opposed to getting trapped. Few people want to be the guy that bought the top, they want to be the one who bought the bottom for example, even if it's not how it works. I know that many who have been around for longer aren't waiting for some 75-80% drop, they'll happily re-invest for the long-term once some suitable discount presents itself, but it represents a similar concept nonetheless.
The pain could therefore be something like price getting to $100-150K in Q1, but then
only falling back down to maybe $50K-$60K, taking another few months to consolidate, or even another 11 months for example, then moving upto $150K, or $200K, and overall breaking the 4-year cycle. The pain comes from those who sold the top, but then never bought back in around $50-60K as were waiting for some 75-80% drop a year later that never comes, only around 50-60% for 6 months for example, as we alrady had. The super cycle theory also doesn't mean that price is permanently in a bull market either, but rather with more short-term bear markets or longer periods of consolidation in between. The sort of price movements that definitely confuse investors as well as speculators as to whether price mid-term remains bullish or bearish when the answers is neither. So far I still don't see it, but with price breaking key long-term support for a bull market, and without a blow off top, I see the argument becoming much stronger. For wealth preservation this is obviously better for most people, as well as the price stability obviously becoming a necessary characteristic for Bitcoin to mature towards, some would say inevitable even. As you say, Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about the average investor, so it shouldn't be that unimaginable that the supercycle theory is what leads to Bitcoin's price stability and therefore further adoption in future. Like actually buying a coffee for 100 sats, without that price dramatically changing next year to 350-400 sats while trapped in a 4 year cycle, then the year after to 50 sats, etc. Not the best analogy I know, but I think you get the idea here.
Also generally the predictability of the blow off top event in one sense makes it less likely to occur, as less people are now wanting to buy into a parabolic run to the upside, if their idea is to sell it, in the same way others have done so in 2013 or 2017. Waiting for prices to finally capitulate before buying back in at lower prices. Bare in mind that many investors aren't looking at wealth preservation, as many are still looking for speculative profit, hence their interest in shitcoins for example. I'm struggling to find many reasons as to why the new ATHs above $64K weren't sustained, apart from the obvious low volume (lack of buying interest). I'm not going to blame shitcoins for that like others have suggested, even if I find it an influencing factor looking back at 2017 cycle and how that played out (controversial I know). Others who are more drawn to Bitcoin's fundamentals, which I think is fair to say are increasing in the world, rather than it's speculative price movements, are more likely to buy at any price or otherwise try and buy dips (if that's what others are recommending). It means less people are going to be willing to buy tops or even break-outs, leaving only the margin traders to trap themselves at higher levels it seems. Bingo.
Either way, time will tell whether this theory is correct or not, without it being too late either imo.
Nobody should ever be scared to see healthy consolidation or a correction in a bull market. Patience is a virtue.
Who said anyone is scared..
Fear & Greed Index for starts that I find a reliable metric, people overall got very scared again... even in this thread too.
Nobody ever talks about manipulation when price is going up, only down I see. Do you have any references?
I don't need any references. If there are more tools in the market in order to be able to attempt to cause BTC prices to go down without buying any BTC, then those kinds of tools can be used to attempt to manipulate BTC price.. whether they are successful or not may well be another story.
Sounds like a theory, but a valid one nonetheless. Personally I prefer concrete data as evidence to prove specific events, especially when discussing data.
As far as I understand a whale simply wanted to cash out or panic sell and decided the spot market was a good place for that, hence why price dropped so quicklyt.
Have you heard about leverage?
have you heard about margin trading?
Wait, let me check.... oh wait, there it is, literally my next paragraph
I can't say the same for the wick down to $42K, that looked more a cascade of liquidations, after a panic seller got impatient and started panic selling even quicker, not realising he/she/they were triggering such a crash.
Each to their own... it provided some great BTFD opportunities, so I'm not going to discourage any whales from that emotional behaviour!
Don't get me wrong in terms of some thoughts that I am "into" manipulation theories that ONLY explain one side of BTC's price movements, and in that regard, I am not too much into manipulation theories in any kind of direction, but I am not going to deny that manipulation exists or to ignore various behind the scenes conduct that may well be happening.. whether it ends up affecting BTC price in one direction or another or it becomes a kind of wash.
Fair enough.
Seems to me that we are in a bullmarket until otherwise, and who gives any shits about the scared newbies. Scared newbies get reckt in every bullrun.. so we need not be weighing them as if they were some kind of significant meaningful factor that we now need to take into account.. when there is already a tendency to run them over like a steamroller anyhow.
Personally I think the newbie mentality of around 50% of those invested in Bitcoin right now is extremely relevant, as it's a great signal of what not to do.
I'm sorry you fail to see the value in that, given how rekt they routinely get in bull markets, as well as bear markets.
Yes.. newbies.. a likely wash. Good luck with your newbies in the market theory.. you are likely going to need it, if you are working your price analysis to give much if any weight to that kind of wash-laden information.
Personally, I like to consider all the variables. After all, buyers and sellers determine price to many degrees, even if not all or sometimes not by that much either.
I mean look at Billy for example, he's still waiting for $10K or whatever, and the reality is he's not the only one.
Fuck Billy...
He is hardly representative.
He is a troll at best, and if you actually believe that Billy actual represents any kind of meaningful person then you are likely delusional yourself.
He's not representative of most Bitcoiners no, but newbies are easily drawn to his and others mentality that price could drop 50%+ again from here, on a permanent basis it seems. Obviously I barely even think this is possible, without the black swan event you suggested, but this plays on many newbies emotions that are fast becoming a dominant force in this market.
yeah.. newbies and their mentality is about as dominant as one of my little fingers in terms of both of my hands (and my feet for that matter).
If buyers and sellers were both your hands, one of them would be newbies for short-term price action at least, consider that much at least.
Billy represents a lot of newcoiners mentality, that much is obvious to me. Also a useful counter-trading indicator to a certain extent.
BillyNoCoiner has been accurate at helping to identify bottoms in the market, I find value in that personally.
I still remember in summer, when price rebounded to $40K, most newbie investors I knew were looking at a chart that was going viral with an arrow pointed to $10K or some similar stupid level, based on the idea that $40K rebound was a lower high and therefore price would go down. Claiming it was like 2017, without any real analysis to back up such a claim. The classic newbie becoming a TA expert overnight lol.
I literally had to draw a line to $1 million to show how anyone can draw a line on a chart, but without much explanation apart from "looks similar", it doesn't mean anything.
Ok... so you recognize how meaningless the newbies were in May, June, July but you still want to give them some meaning this time around?
Exactly. To me it seemed quite obvious with the new influx of newbies it meant price took longer to consolidate than expected. It generated considerable panic from longer-term investors who weren't prepared for that outcome it seems. When I hear in this thread saying "the next 24 hours are critical", when they are completely not, it reminds me of the newbie's influence on short-term price action.
And you would not want to be responsible for my loss of vision, would you?
Don't think I'd feel responsible, that'd be your choice to blind yourself which I would wholeheartedly respect
As I've stated before, can't be bothered to quote, closing below key support would provide a good argument that the bull market is over, for now, ...
Not something I've really considered as that likely either, or necessarily that worrying, although sure anything is possible.
You see... you just said it again. You believe that the bull market is likely to be over soon..
Again, you misunderstood me. I said
IF price moves below key support, which it has not done so.
I am not misunderstanding you.
You clearly were, I don't see how you can deny that. In exactly the same paragraph I clearly stated I don't believe it to be the case either? I'm not sure how you could have ignored that... It's quite a rudimentary tactic to take someone's quote out of context, and personally I expected a lot better from you. I fail to see what you have to gain from misrepresenting me here.
For the past few days I've reiterated many times how the bull market has been given further confirmation. I've not once said
"I believe the bull market is likely to be over soon", not even slightly. I've only elaborated on what I think would happen
if the bull market ends, which again to reiterate, it has not, and I don't believe will happen either in a hurry.
But I already explained this anyway in my previous post, so probably no point reiterating it so many times if you fail to acknowledge that, for whatever you think you have to gain (which is nothing by the way)...
As I've said repeatedly in this thread, I see no evidence that the bull market is over, again you have misunderstood my analysis.
Yes..
even though you see no evidence that the bull market is overHang on, this is a complete contradiction of your previous statement:
You see... you just said it again. You believe that the bull market is likely to be over soon..
With this, I hope you can clearly see where either the misunderstanding or intentional misrepresentation comes from here.
Go on then, tell me more about what if the bull market were to be over even though you do not believe it to be.. does that make sense? You are contributing to your own talking outside of both sides of your mouth, no? You want to be academic? so what.
Well fortunately, I did at the top of this post, so you can read my theory on what happens if, which I find very interesting personally. The idea of a 10 year+ cycle being broken is not only intriguing to me, but naturally raising the question of why and how. I otherwise don't see how I'm giving contradictory statements, I think it's best to see my theories as a flow chart, if one direction is taken, then a different event occurs. Consider it like cause and effect, but the cause has to actually take place.
Using the phrase
talking outside of both sides of your mouth appears to be more of a projection of your own statements above, those that completely contradict each other
I also think now based on price structure that if the bull market ends, given the wide $30K-70K range in the past 10 months (fact not opinion),
Yes a fact with misleading implications.
You're only misleading yourself if you think such a wide trading range means X, Y or Z without any reasoning.
and that given price is in a trading range of $30-70K,
Oh gawd.. that is way too damned broad.. I doubt that we are currently in a $30k to $70k trading range..
Please have a look at the chart, price has been between $28K and $69K for the past 10 months, so I was rounding.
So what.
So best not to mislead yourself with data? I don't know how you want me to answer that one for you, don't think I cant help.
It's ok to be wrong every now and then. Everyone get's things wrong, myself included obviously!
This has been the trading range, unless you know of other trades that have been occurring OTC or otherwise outside of this range, this IS the current price range long-term.
Yeah.. believe it all that you like.. good luck with those vague boundaries and your belief that they are relevant in terms of attempting to make a meaningful analysis..
I don't think they are vague, they are quite specific. 11 months of trading data is indeed quite relevant to me, I certainly wouldn't want to analyse for the long-term with any less that's for sure.
Nor am I implying that price is stuck on that range, but that trades have been occurring between these prices.
Again. So what?
Well, I already made my point, but think it's been snipped. It's at the top anyway
This is fact not opinion.
Who cares? yes.. you do ... but still.. ?
I always care about facts, much more so than opinions. Many people I know also appreciate facts, not that you have to obviously.
I guess it's just another case of a difference of opinion. Some people live by facts, others prefers opinions I guess.
it's most likely to stay there - maybe for another year.
I doubt it.
Please avoid misquoting me, given how often you misunderstand me.
Who is misquoting you? not me.
Good example higher up for you with evidence included, hopefully that settles the matter.
I don't mind the misunderstandings, but the misrepresentations are simply quite rude.
I doubt that misrepresentations are going on.
Apart from the obvious misrepresentation that is.
If you believe that you are not being understood well enough, then make yourself more clear.
This is nothing more than attempting to gaslight me into thinking this didn't happen, when it did.
Because it didn't matter how clear I made myself, you still managed to misquote me regardless.
But it's ok, you made your contradictions clear so I'm not going mad at all...
I feel that I am making sufficiently good enough representations, and if you believe I got it wrong then state it..
Done.
Why bother with these unlikely theories? Because people are curious as to what is likely to happen if support breaks, and as I said it's much less of a concern than 2013 or 2017 bubble pops.
Fair enough... There are members who do talking about unlikely scenarios.. and they may well get backlash.. so do what you like.
I don't mind backlash, and now come to appreciate it, especially when it's led by misrepresentation. It shows someone is struggling to argue against it when they resort to this. I honestly hadn't put too much thought into alternative theories, but you've definitely woken me up to it's relevance based on how people don't want to hear it. It reminds me of the backlash when being bearish around $10K-14K, prior to the drop to $7K, it helped to reaffirm my opinion quite nicely to be honest. Not that I think price will drop 40-50% I should say (to avoid any misinterpretation here), but controversial theories often prove to be correct it seems.
I still remember the bears in 2018 during the $6K-8K range, who were a considerable minority, while everyone thought they were completely bonkers talking of price dropping in half. Myself included at the time... that was definitely an eye-opener for me that made me sceptical or popular opinions. That was my first valuable lesson in learning that the majority is usually wrong when it comes to markets.
Also the obvious of being prepared for any scenario, so as to never be surprised, confused or upset about price movements, and simply benefit from adequate risk management.
Sure. We should be prepared for either UP or down.. I am not against that, especially since I also talk about being prepared for UP or DOWN frequently, too.
Ironically, that's only what I've been doing. The only difference is I provide reasoning for why I believe these things to occur, as opposed to considering up or down unaffected by a diversity of variables.
Poll
