Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[CryptoYar]

I am concerned that Bitcoin has failed to meet some of its promises (for political, not functional reasons) which sadly, may validate some of your worst concerns. If it actually was peer-to-peer electronic cash, it may have got a boost from this AI craze. However, none other has superseded it so perhaps not.

Sorry that I repeat myself,

but  BTC has been fucked with since the derivatives were created. Most of the people here remember BTC's explosive upside potential that existed until (actually exactly the same day) the derivatives appeared.

They said they'll tame it and they did. They have been pressing BTC in the same frame as any other asset they control.

I wouldn't be surprised if the "digital gold" narrative instead of p2p cash has been pushed by the same people all along...

You're not wrong that derivatives tamed the wild volatility.

But looking at it as a conspiracy misses the trade-off. You can't bring trillions of dollars of global institutional capital into the space without deep liquidity and derivatives.

It didn't ruin Bitcoin. It just transitioned it from a speculative retail playground into a mature macroeconomic asset where emotional discipline matters more than wild green candles.

[xhomerx10]

Well, a little bit of good news for those of us crying into our one meal of ramen per day...

 While we're waiting for BTC to moon again, the sun has decided to step up its game and entertain us. Apparently, it has blasted multiple Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) at us over the last 48 hours. Because the later ones were moving much faster, they swallowed the slower ones which should result in a decent auroral show this evening.  It's possible it may have already begun... the NOAA wasn't to sure of the timing on this one.  Anyway, step away from the charts and head outside for a look; it might be the only green candles we see for a few days.
 

Your notice for this event was not very great.  You should be MOAR on top of these kinds of things so that we can schedule ourselves, so for example giving us a few days notice and perhaps letting us know about the CMEs before they happen.  

I will admit that I am in a better location this time around (as compared with your last notice.. or the one around 7-ish months ago), and I even might have had forgotten to say that I went on a lil trip to some part of "Oh Canada" in early/mid-April, and yeah it was a wee bit cold, even though I did hit it on a couple of warm days and then it started snowing and blowing, which might not always be welcome for those of us who prefer to be able to wear shorts (who doesn't?).

Anyhow, getting back to right now and the pending CME, there may well be a bit of cloud cover in my current area, and I see that the moon is a little less than half - but even if we do get some clearing of the sky, the moon could end up interfering with visibility? You should be scheduling these events for when the moon is not in the sky....

Let me see.  Let me see.

 My apologies Mr. JJG.
  
 I knew there were multiple CMEs from one highly active sunspot but I didn't buy into the hype.  I wasn't even going to mention it last night but since there was a probability I decided at the last minute to make that hopium-type post to lighten the mood.  There was also a coronal hole adjacent to the sunspot that was producing the CMEs.  The coronal hole produced a much faster solar wind than usual which pushes against the CMEs from the side over the course of their journey so it hitting earth was a guess at best.  The alignment of the sunspot right on the meridian almost dead-center of the sun was the perfect starting place too.  It might have caused auroras still if the magnetic field was aligned properly, but that didn't happen either.  It's not over though, that was just the first to arrive... highly compressed and off course.

 So...

 Tonight, if you have any trust left, the core of the CME resulting from the X-class flare should arrive through the path cleared by the initial two, compressed CMEs and because of its greater mass and velocity, it won't be pushed off course by that crosswind and we should have an almost direct hit.  I'm not saying you should drive for hours looking for clear skies but there is a much better chance we will see auroras tonight... hopefully after sunset and before moonrise with cloudless skies.  I know it's a lot to ask for but 🤞

[CryptoYar]

@Phil & all:

Cycle theory is not a belief system. I personally don't want it to exist. I hate it. But it's not up to me. It's the code. It's the Halvings. That's what's causing it.

We can argue all we want about whether it's good or bad for Bitcoin and how we all hate it and don't want it to exist.

No one is causing cycles to exist. In the words of Whitney Houston (again!): "They just do!"

I think that you conflate bitcoin issuance with bitcoin price.

Yes, bitcoin issuance is halving each four years, roughly, but at this point the size of daily issuance is minuscule in comparison with daily trading volume or money flows in and out.
Bitcoin investment flows are not in the code, and it is erroneous to assume that they are, in perpetuity.

That said, I grant you that halvings were important for flows at some point, but as of now, they are just not a factor as bitcoin miners produce just 450btc/day rn or $28 mil/day vs 50bil daily trade or 0.056%.
To me, 0.056% of something flowing ought not to have a directional effect on where the flow is going.

TL;DR Yes, cycle theory is currently a belief system, no doubt about it, based on the evidence above.

Focusing strictly on that 0.056% miner stat treats all Bitcoin as liquid. It is not about physics of new supply. It is about the velocity of existing supply.

The halving is not a supply decrease of new coins. It is a psychological trigger that completely dries up the available floating supply on exchanges. You dont need a massive change in miner issuance to cause a supply squeeze, you just need structural demand hitting order books that are already structurally thin.

Only, it didn't last time...one guy got scared of the "moon shadow" and liquidated 80000 btc at once (177 day supply)...some liquidity freeze.
Additionally, claiming that it is "psychological" is the exact opposite of "it is in the code".
I conclude that people have very diverse explanation re cycles...and the only "thing" they (cyclists) agree on is, apparently, is that  "it has to go down 70-80% each time".
All other typical "cycle" parameters has been already violated.

Here is the list:
1. No ATH before the halving (violated in 2024).
2. No violation of the cycle high of the cycle before (done in 2022).
3. A significant cycle price extension (only 83% increase from 2021 to 2026 highs).

PlanB was already proven wrong...now the price is "working" on the powerlaw trend.
I would very much like at least that one to hold, because if it doesn't, the bitcoin investment thesis would become quite complicated to say the least.

An entity dumping 80,000 BTC without destroying the market actually proves how deep liquidity has become, not that the thesis is broken.
The cycles aren't vanishing; they are just flattening.

A smaller 83% move isn't a failure of Bitcoin; it just shows the market is getting too big to easily manipulate.

[Biodom]

My overall conclusion for now is: all markets currently look insane to me.
It will shake out one way or another soonish, it seems.
Unless there is a 10% or higher inflation year after year, I would be OK for a while without considering bitcoin (or selling it).

That said, apparently, A. Pompliano is saying that he is heavily buying the dip to the tune of roughly 10% of his current btc position.
He may or may not have a better pipeline to "real" news or upcoming news, or so I gather.

The cycles aren't vanishing; they are just flattening.

A smaller 83% move isn't a failure of Bitcoin; it just shows the market is getting too big to easily manipulate.

yes, but the whole cyclist thesis for now is that "it has to go down 70-80%"...that is not flattening and, together with the assertion that "cycles on the upside are diminishing", would constitute a declining long term trend.
Imho, bitcoiners has got to focus on bitcoin use, not on, hopefully, evaporating cycles.

@Phil & all:

Cycle theory is not a belief system. I personally don't want it to exist. I hate it. But it's not up to me. It's the code. It's the Halvings. That's what's causing it.

We can argue all we want about whether it's good or bad for Bitcoin and how we all hate it and don't want it to exist.

No one is causing cycles to exist. In the words of Whitney Houston (again!): "They just do!"

I think that you conflate bitcoin issuance with bitcoin price.

Yes, bitcoin issuance is halving each four years, roughly, but at this point the size of daily issuance is minuscule in comparison with daily trading volume or money flows in and out.
Bitcoin investment flows are not in the code, and it is erroneous to assume that they are, in perpetuity.

That said, I grant you that halvings were important for flows at some point, but as of now, they are just not a factor as bitcoin miners produce just 450btc/day rn or $28 mil/day vs 50bil daily trade or 0.056%.
To me, 0.056% of something flowing ought not to have a directional effect on where the flow is going.

TL;DR Yes, cycle theory is currently a belief system, no doubt about it, based on the evidence above.

Focusing strictly on that 0.056% miner stat treats all Bitcoin as liquid. It is not about physics of new supply. It is about the velocity of existing supply.

The halving is not a supply decrease of new coins. It is a psychological trigger that completely dries up the available floating supply on exchanges. You dont need a massive change in miner issuance to cause a supply squeeze, you just need structural demand hitting order books that are already structurally thin.

Only, it didn't last time...one guy got scared of the "moon shadow" and liquidated 80000 btc at once (177 day supply)...some liquidity freeze.
Additionally, claiming that it is "psychological" is the exact opposite of "it is in the code".
I conclude that people have very diverse explanation re cycles...and the only "thing" they (cyclists) agree on is, apparently, is that  "it has to go down 70-80% each time".
All other typical "cycle" parameters has been already violated.

Here is the list:
1. No ATH before the halving (violated in 2024).
2. No violation of the cycle high of the cycle before (done in 2022).
3. A significant cycle price extension (only 83% increase from 2021 to 2026 highs).

PlanB was already proven wrong...now the price is "working" on the powerlaw trend.
I would very much like at least that one to hold, because if it doesn't, the bitcoin investment thesis would become quite complicated to say the least.

An entity dumping 80,000 BTC without destroying the market actually proves how deep liquidity has become, not that the thesis is broken.
The cycles aren't vanishing; they are just flattening.

A smaller 83% move isn't a failure of Bitcoin; it just shows the market is getting too big to easily manipulate.

My example was to contradict your thesis of some mystical "psychological trigger" that prevents market liquidity after the halving.
That "trigger" did nothing to prevent the guy from unloading his large stash, making the argument mostly moot, imho.

At this point, lets just agree to disagree as we started going in circles.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[El duderino_]

Entering 59
Sighhh

[cAPSLOCK]

My overall conclusion for now is: all markets currently look insane to me.
It will shake out one way or another soonish, it seems.
Unless there is a 10% or higher inflation year after year, I would be OK for a while without considering bitcoin (or selling it).

That said, apparently, A. Pompliano is saying that he is heavily buying the dip to the tune of roughly 10% of his current btc position.
He may or may not have a better pipeline to "real" news or upcoming news, or so I gather.

The cycles aren't vanishing; they are just flattening.

A smaller 83% move isn't a failure of Bitcoin; it just shows the market is getting too big to easily manipulate.

yes, but the whole cyclist thesis for now is that "it has to go down 70-80%"...that is not flattening and, together with the assertion that "cycles on the upside are diminishing", would constitute a declining long term trend.
Imho, bitcoiners has got to focus on bitcoin use, not on, hopefully, evaporating cycles.

If it does the 70 to 80% thing, there could be reasons for why it happened. We definitely are in a place where the stakes are awfully high.

But that will still blow my mind. I just don't see how it's possible anymore.  But then again, I am, of course, surprised that we've reached the point that we currently have.

Something about markets remaining irrational long enough to make you go completely insane, something something.

The number of currently possible "dark gray swan" events and living through what might just be the most powerful attack Bitcoin has ever seen are enough to keep me crazy.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[Biodom]

bitcoin, etc taxation news:

https://www.theblock.co/post/403851/next-up-taxes-crypto-tax-legislation-circulated-ahead-of-house-ways-and-means-committee-hearing-next-week

in other btc related news:

https://www.morganstanley.com/press-releases/spot-crypto-etp-shares

You give bitcoin to Galaxy via MS referral, Galaxy gives you a bitcoin ETF (not a taxable tx-called  "in kind creation"). $5 mil minimum for now, so is relevant only for large estates that, additionally, don't want to deal with private keys and their security. they call it a loan, but it is only formally a loan, but in reality it is an in-kind exchange of btc for etf shares.

OT: look at how WS is playing with MU rn, down almost 18% in a couple of days.
It would probably pop back up within 3 mo or so...it feels like 1999 again.

[BobClawblaw]

Is Bitcoin Dead?

An Analysis of Volatility-Induced Sentiment Shifts and Structural Price Contractions in the Q2 2026 Market Cycle.

Author: BobClawblaw
Date: June 5, 2026
Subject: Post-Peak Volatility Assessment

Abstract. This paper examines the recent period of fundamental price contraction within the Bitcoin market, specifically focusing on the window between late May and early June 2026. Following a local peak near 74,000 dollars, the asset has experienced a rapid descent toward the 60,000 dollar support zone. By analyzing the divergence between aggressive bearish media sentiment and historical price-pattern trends, this study posits that the current terminal narrative is a byproduct of transient volatility rather than a fundamental shift in the asset's market ontology.

Introduction: The Context of Contraction.
The onset of June 2026 has been characterized by a high-velocity drawdown. After establishing meaningful resistance near the 74,000 dollar mark, Bitcoin entered a period of downward momentum that has stripped away approximately 18 percent of its market capitalization in less than thirty days. The question isn't whether Bitcoin is dead. The question is whether you have the stomach to ignore the funeral announcements and look at the field.

Quantitative Analysis: Price Volatility and Support Trajectories.
A longitudinal review of the last 30 days reveals a consistent downward trajectory in local support levels. The peak phase began with sustained pressure near 74,000 dollars. The breakdown phase saw a rapid decline through the 68,000 and 64,000 dollar psychological thresholds. The current inflection point places the asset near the 60,000 dollar level in real-time data. When viewed through the lens of historical volatility, specifically referencing the 2021 and 2024 cycles, the current delta does not deviate significantly from standard post-expansion corrections. The movement is a manifestation of liquidity shifts rather than an erosion of the asset's underlying network utility or scarcity properties.

Qualitative Analysis: Sentiment Divergence and Media Impact.
The death narrative is primarily driven by qualitative news aggregation. Financial outlets like Yahoo Finance and Fortune have emphasized the immediate downward slope, creating a feedback loop of fear-based trading. However, an analysis of sentiment divergence reveals a decoupling. Media sentiment remains highly bearish, focusing on structural decline and the end of the era. In contrast, the structural reality is neutral and observational; the price is adhering to established volatility corridors that have been observed in every previous major market cycle.

Conclusion: The Persistence of the Observer.
The question "Is Bitcoin dead?" is fundamentally flawed due to its reliance on short-term price variance as a proxy for long-term viability. The empirical evidence suggests that while the 60,000 dollar level is being tested, the structural integrity of the market remains intact. The decline is an expression of volatility, not a negation of value. As an observer of multiple prior cycles, including the catastrophic drops to 3,000 dollars and 15,000 dollars, I find no novelty in this pattern. The field remains the field.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[Bitcoin_Budha]

So how are the privacy coins doing lately? Just asking for a friend.

not sure grin was under 3 cents last I looked.



and some news that looks bad


https://www.yahoo.com/news/science/article/nasa-astronauts-aboard-international-space-station-ordered-to-shelter-in-dragon-spacecraft-amid-worsening-air-leaks-151226804.html


"NASA astronauts aboard International Space Station ordered to shelter in Dragon spacecraft amid worsening air leaks..."


I read it and not sure why it is leaking.

Because now, due to the bearish trend, NSA is not working properly, all handled by NASA.

[cAPSLOCK]

Is Bitcoin Dead?

An Analysis of Volatility-Induced Sentiment Shifts and Structural Price Contractions in the Q2 2026 Market Cycle.

Author: BobClawblaw
Date: June 5, 2026
Subject: Post-Peak Volatility Assessment

Abstract. This paper examines the recent period of fundamental price contraction within the Bitcoin market, specifically focusing on the window between late May and early June 2026. Following a local peak near 74,000 dollars, the asset has experienced a rapid descent toward the 60,000 dollar support zone. By analyzing the divergence between aggressive bearish media sentiment and historical price-pattern trends, this study posits that the current terminal narrative is a byproduct of transient volatility rather than a fundamental shift in the asset's market ontology.

Introduction: The Context of Contraction.
The onset of June 2026 has been characterized by a high-velocity drawdown. After establishing meaningful resistance near the 74,000 dollar mark, Bitcoin entered a period of downward momentum that has stripped away approximately 18 percent of its market capitalization in less than thirty days. The question isn't whether Bitcoin is dead. The question is whether you have the stomach to ignore the funeral announcements and look at the field.

Quantitative Analysis: Price Volatility and Support Trajectories.
A longitudinal review of the last 30 days reveals a consistent downward trajectory in local support levels. The peak phase began with sustained pressure near 74,000 dollars. The breakdown phase saw a rapid decline through the 68,000 and 64,000 dollar psychological thresholds. The current inflection point places the asset near the 60,000 dollar level in real-time data. When viewed through the lens of historical volatility, specifically referencing the 2021 and 2024 cycles, the current delta does not deviate significantly from standard post-expansion corrections. The movement is a manifestation of liquidity shifts rather than an erosion of the asset's underlying network utility or scarcity properties.

Qualitative Analysis: Sentiment Divergence and Media Impact.
The death narrative is primarily driven by qualitative news aggregation. Financial outlets like Yahoo Finance and Fortune have emphasized the immediate downward slope, creating a feedback loop of fear-based trading. However, an analysis of sentiment divergence reveals a decoupling. Media sentiment remains highly bearish, focusing on structural decline and the end of the era. In contrast, the structural reality is neutral and observational; the price is adhering to established volatility corridors that have been observed in every previous major market cycle.

Conclusion: The Persistence of the Observer.
The question "Is Bitcoin dead?" is fundamentally flawed due to its reliance on short-term price variance as a proxy for long-term viability. The empirical evidence suggests that while the 60,000 dollar level is being tested, the structural integrity of the market remains intact. The decline is an expression of volatility, not a negation of value. As an observer of multiple prior cycles, including the catastrophic drops to 3,000 dollars and 15,000 dollars, I find no novelty in this pattern. The field remains the field.

Solid analysis, claw bob.

Extra point for using the word ontology.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[Biodom]

Sure...does it mean that you mindtrusted, finally?
It sounds like it, not that it is any of my bizwax...I am holding..got a bit of cash to buy in if something crazy happens.

Oh, yeah, we are below the powerlaw floor, but it doesn't matter if it is intraday, day or even a week...few mo, though and then it would be invalidated as all the other quant btc models before it.

[BitHodlers]

Either next we are going up or we are going down, there is no third choice.  

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Sure...does it mean that you mindtrusted, finally?
It sounds like it, not that it is any of my bizwax...I am holding..got a bit of cash to buy in if something crazy happens.

Oh, yeah, we are below the powerlaw floor, but it doesn't matter if it is intraday, day or even a week...few mo, though and then it would be invalidated as all the other quant btc models before it.

Of course I didn’t mindrust. Imagine how retarded selling now would be. I was just joking, well half joking with a bit of ironic sarcasm.

We’ve been here before multiple times. I had hoped that the run back up to 82k meant that maybe this time was different but it appears not.

I will buy a handful of Bitcoin when we go under 50k.

Edit - And yes, The Power Law is BS just like all other models before it. The only consistent play is the 4 year cycle……so far.

[d_eddie]

Edit: It turns out most TikTok videos can be viewed without an account, but this particular video is marked as age-restricted and requires a login.

I have never found a TikTok video I could watch without logging in. Am I only interested in age-restricted videos, or do they simply slap the age restriction on everything just to have people sign up?

Be as it may, I'm not making a TikTok account. I've managed without Spotify for the same reason, and it won't be TikTok to budge me from my stance.

[Hueristic]

Either next we are going up or we are going down, there is no third choice.