2025 Elliott Wave

[bbc.reporter]

You've spent a year insisting on the bearish scenario with the irregular flat.
Finally, a year later, you have a bullish alternative count.

What I don't understand is why, for a year now, you haven't considered both scenarios, bearish and bullish.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5485551.msg64106795#msg64106795

Have said since NOV/DEC 2024 that beyond $114,000 would suggest an elimination of the B-wave bearish scenarios...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5485551.msg64799443#msg64799443

However, this is my question. If bitcoin does not breakout beyond $114k within 2 months, you are predicting that it is a certainty that it will dump to $50k again or will the predictions change depending on the chart again?

If predictions chance depending on the chart again, I reckon these are not real predictions that can be used for trading bitcoin.

[xxxx123abcxxxx]

However, this is my question. If bitcoin does not breakout beyond $114k within 2 months, you are predicting that it is a certainty that it will dump to $50k again or will the predictions change depending on the chart again?

If predictions chance depending on the chart again, I reckon these are not real predictions that can be used for trading bitcoin.

Bitcoin could go sideways for the next 2 months, and still both the bull and bear scenarios would remain in play.

[pizzapotential]

Being able to use the EW model doesn't prevent you from being wrong, right.

Predicting the individual moves within a cycle is harder than predicting that there will be a cycle. You're always going to have to back-track and recount.

[bbc.reporter]

However, this is my question. If bitcoin does not breakout beyond $114k within 2 months, you are predicting that it is a certainty that it will dump to $50k again or will the predictions change depending on the chart again?

If predictions chance depending on the chart again, I reckon these are not real predictions that can be used for trading bitcoin.

Bitcoin could go sideways for the next 2 months, and still both the bull and bear scenarios would remain in play.

My question is on this elliot waves. Will this always depend on what the market is doing presently or are these predictions real predictions where it can say where or what the market will do on the next 6 months?

If the expert eliot waves predictors change their predictions depending on what might presently occur on the market, can they declare always that the elliot waves really is a good market indicator?

[xxxx123abcxxxx]

My question is on this elliot waves. Will this always depend on what the market is doing presently or are these predictions real predictions where it can say where or what the market will do on the next 6 months?

If the expert eliot waves predictors change their predictions depending on what might presently occur on the market, can they declare always that the elliot waves really is a good market indicator?

There is no such accurate prediction indicator or model of any event in this world: nor weather, nor sporting events, nor genetic mutations, nor elections results, nor stock prices.
If forecasting and prediction was 100% accurate, and if all the outcomes of all events could be known and calculated in advance, then there would be no free-will.

Like all prediction models, the Elliott Wave theory provides probabilistic outcomes; whereby, the forecast is monitored and adjusted to incoming data.
Successful trading is largely based on account management; i.e. stop-losses and limits, balancing margin and hedging.

For now, the Elliott Wave model presented here suggests Bitcoin may decline to $50,000 to $60,000 during 3Q-4Q of 2025, and then, the bull market resumes.
If however, Bitcoin advances in an impulsive five-wave structure beyond $114,000 with a weekly close, then it may suggest the bull market is already resuming.

[bbc.reporter]

@xxxx123abcxxxx. Does that imply that elliot wave experts are no better traders than trendlines experts? I reckon traders who will choose one of these methods will both of them not have an accurate prediction. We can also be quite certain that other traders who are using different methods would also not have an accurate prediction.

Also, we have a similar assessment that the market will dump lower, however, to dump on $50k is very headshaking. This is very low. We can be quite certain that many investors who are waiting to buy more bitcoin will buy before it dumps to this price.

This is the trendline that I have been observing. Can you also draw an elliot waves for this?

[xxxx123abcxxxx]

@xxxx123abcxxxx. Does that imply that elliot wave experts are no better traders than trendlines experts? I reckon traders who will choose one of these methods will both of them not have an accurate prediction. We can also be quite certain that other traders who are using different methods would also not have an accurate prediction.

Also, we have a similar assessment that the market will dump lower, however, to dump on $50k is very headshaking. This is very low. We can be quite certain that many investors who are waiting to buy more bitcoin will buy before it dumps to this price.

This is the trendline that I have been observing. Can you also draw an elliot waves for this?

https://imgvb.com/images/2025/05/27/613517adc370afe7941a0b66f92e7a20.jpg

Whether using Elliott Waves, or Trendlines, or Momentum Oscillators, or a combination of all —any model will work some of the time, but not all of the time.

[XenoxCapital]

@xxxx123abcxxxx, I've been following you for a while now and I truly admire your work! I've also been working with Elliott Wave analysis for some time, and I believe there are a few points where the wave count might be off.

In my view, we're still within the first major wave, and currently in an extended wave 3. The initial (sub)wave 1 began in July 2011 at $15, followed by a corrective wave 2 — in line with the rule of alternation. This should eventually develop into a complex wave 3 and 4, after which wave 5 will complete the third wave within the first major wave.

See my projections: BTC https://www.tradingview.com/x/ABJGEfVR/ and DJI https://www.tradingview.com/x/ybclgrCG/

After that, I expect a prolonged cooling-off period in the market. If we look at the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJI) starting in 1896, according to my analysis that was only wave 4 of the first major wave. Wave 5 wasn't completed until 32 years later, in July 1929. What followed was a corrective phase that lasted 32.8 years.

I believe we're entering a similar phase again — and that includes the DJI as well.

[xxxx123abcxxxx]

@xxxx123abcxxxx, I've been following you for a while now and I truly admire your work! I've also been working with Elliott Wave analysis for some time, and I believe there are a few points where the wave count might be off.

In my view, we're still within the first major wave, and currently in an extended wave 3. The initial (sub)wave 1 began in July 2011 at $15, followed by a corrective wave 2 — in line with the rule of alternation. This should eventually develop into a complex wave 3 and 4, after which wave 5 will complete the third wave within the first major wave.

See my projections: BTC and DJI

After that, I expect a prolonged cooling-off period in the market. If we look at the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJI) starting in 1896, according to my analysis that was only wave 4 of the first major wave. Wave 5 wasn't completed until 32 years later, in July 1929. What followed was a corrective phase that lasted 32.8 years.

I believe we're entering a similar phase again — and that includes the DJI as well.

Interesting count, thank you for sharing.

However, unsure if your count considers the duration of waves in relation to degree of waves.

While exact time spans may vary, the customary order of wave degrees is reflected in the following sequence...

• Grand Supercycle: multi-century
• Supercycle: multi-decade (about 40–70 years)
• Cycle: one year to several years, or even several decades under an Elliott extension
• Primary: a few months to two years
• Intermediate: weeks to months
• Minor: weeks
• Minute: days
• Minuette: hours
• Subminuette: minutes

[XenoxCapital]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply — you raise a great point regarding the relationship between wave degree and time duration.

I fully agree that Elliott Wave theory depends heavily on the proportionality between wave degree and time, and I’d like to expand a bit further on my perspective.

What most people miss — and what I’ve come to realize over the years — is that every chart begins with what you don’t see. That’s the real starting point of any wave structure. Let me walk you through how I arrived at this idea.

For years, I’ve studied the oldest available charts across multiple cryptocurrencies — not just Bitcoin, but also Ethereum, Dogecoin, ICON, EOS, and XRP. What stood out to me is that each of these coins starts its visible chart at a different point, yet when you study them side by side, they collectively tell a much deeper story.

That story is this: when applying the Trend-Based Fibonacci Extension, you’ll notice that the true structural beginning always tracks back to 0.00000. That’s not just a technicality — it’s a foundational signal. It implies that we are not just seeing the start of a Primary or Cycle wave — we’re potentially witnessing the early formation of a Grand Supercycle structure.

Let me give some broader historical context, using the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJI):

Supercycle wave 4 was formed around July 1, 1896.

This was followed by the fifth and final wave of the Supercycle, ending in January 1930, with a truncated top — marking the end of Grand Supercycle wave 1.

Grand Supercycle wave 2 bottomed in July 1934.

This creates a clear 1–2 structure at the highest wave degree, which we can use as a reference. I believe something similar is unfolding in BTC — but compressed in time due to technological adoption and asset class maturity.

To zoom in:

BTC since 2011 can be interpreted as a Cycle-degree wave.

We are currently in an extended Primary wave 3 within that structure.

This extended wave behavior is consistent with other historical examples: DJI in the 1920s, or NASDAQ in the late 1990s. And just like those moments in history, it requires stepping back and recognizing the bigger wave in motion — not just the visible highs and lows.

That said, I completely agree: it’s essential to stay flexible and always validate wave degrees with both structure and real market behavior. I truly appreciate feedback and alternate counts — because that’s how we refine our view as a community.

Thanks again for your insights and for continuing the conversation.

[xxxx123abcxxxx]

....
That story is this: when applying the Trend-Based Fibonacci Extension, you’ll notice that the true structural beginning always tracks back to 0.00000. That’s not just a technicality — it’s a foundational signal. It implies that we are not just seeing the start of a Primary or Cycle wave — we’re potentially witnessing the early formation of a Grand Supercycle structure.
....

No asset can be tracked back to 0.00000 —this would imply the asset was worthless at some point in history.
Neither gold, nor oil, nor bitcoin, nor either the DJIA index can be tracked back to 0.00000

Bitcoin
Technically speaking, when bitcoin was launched in JAN-2009, it had no market value.
So, the effective "price" was $0 —but there was no chart, nor market nor trading yet, just mined for free.
Once a market was established, the lowest price of bitcoin was $0.00099 (about 1/10th of a cent).

Dow Jones Industtrial Average
26-MAY-1896: initial 'launch' value was 40.94 points.
08-AUG-1896: lowest ever closing value of 28.48 points, after launch.

Most tech IPOs from the Dotcom Bubble (mid-1990 to 2000) eventually dropped below their first traded price.
And so, the rise during that mania was considered a B-wave in those assets; or a final fifth wave in the NASDAQ index.

[XenoxCapital]

Thanks for your thoughtful response — you raise a very good point about the relationship between wave degree and duration within Elliott Wave analysis.

I completely agree that correctly assigning wave degrees requires consideration of time frames. But I’d like to offer some additional context based on my own research and experience.One thing I’ve learned over the years is this: every chart starts with what you don’t see. That hidden beginning is often more important than the visible part we analyze.

Let me explain.
I’ve spent years studying the earliest available price charts of multiple crypto assets — not just Bitcoin, but also Ethereum, Dogecoin, ICON, EOS, and XRP. One thing that stood out to me is how each of these assets starts at different times with different early structures. But taken together, they seem to tell a collective story — a hidden symmetry in their early movements.

That led me to an interesting observation:
When you apply the Trend-Based Fibonacci Extension tool, the starting point often appears to be 0.00000. Let me be clear: I’m not suggesting that any asset literally traded at zero. I'm fully aware that no asset — whether it’s gold, oil, bitcoin, or the Dow Jones — has ever had a real market value of 0.00000.

Here are a few facts to clarify that:

• Bitcoin, at launch in January 2009, technically had no market price. It was mined for free. Once a market was established, the first recorded price was around $0.00099 (about 1/10 of a cent).
• The Dow Jones Industrial Average launched at 40.94 points on May 26, 1896, and hit its lowest closing value at 28.48 points on August 8 of the same year.

So when I refer to “0.00000,” I’m not talking about a historical fact — it’s a tool-based construct within technical analysis. It represents a theoretical origin — the visual zero — which Fibonacci extensions often use to define trend relationships. And understanding that “invisible start” helps interpret what’s coming next.

That being said, I want to make something very clear:
This is simply how I see it. I’m not trying to convince anyone. This method just works really well for me personally, and I’m sharing it in case it resonates with others — nothing more, nothing less.

Looking at it from that perspective, we may be seeing not just Primary or Cycle-degree waves, but possibly the early stages of a Grand Supercycle — especially with Bitcoin, where exponential growth and early-stage adoption can distort our perception of wave proportions.

This also connects with historical cycles in the Dow Jones:

• The Supercycle wave 4 was formed around July 1896.
• The fifth and final wave of that cycle peaked in early 1930 — a truncated top, marking the end of Grand Supercycle wave 1.
• Wave 2 (the correction) bottomed out in July 1934.

That creates a 1–2 structure at the highest wave degree, and I believe we’re seeing something similar unfolding in BTC — albeit over a compressed timeframe due to rapid technological acceleration.

Zooming in further:

• BTC from 2011 onward appears to be part of a Cycle-degree wave,
• I believe we’re currently in an extended Primary wave 3
• mirrors past cycles like the Dow in the 1920s or the NASDAQ in the late 1990s.

As with those historical cases, the key is to zoom out, avoid getting fixated on surface-level moves, and stay open to the idea that we might be part of a much larger unfolding structure.
That said, I completely agree with your point: flexibility, constant re-evaluation, and a strong understanding of wave structure and duration are essential. Thoughtful feedback like yours helps refine these counts — and strengthens the community as a whole.

Thanks again for engaging with the idea. I genuinely appreciate it.

[xxxx123abcxxxx]

Thanks for your thoughtful response — you raise a very good point about the relationship between wave degree and duration within Elliott Wave analysis.

I completely agree that correctly assigning wave degrees requires consideration of time frames. But I’d like to offer some additional context based on my own research and experience.One thing I’ve learned over the years is this: every chart starts with what you don’t see. That hidden beginning is often more important than the visible part we analyze.

Let me explain.
I’ve spent years studying the earliest available price charts of multiple crypto assets — not just Bitcoin, but also Ethereum, Dogecoin, ICON, EOS, and XRP. One thing that stood out to me is how each of these assets starts at different times with different early structures. But taken together, they seem to tell a collective story — a hidden symmetry in their early movements.

That led me to an interesting observation:
When you apply the Trend-Based Fibonacci Extension tool, the starting point often appears to be 0.00000. Let me be clear: I’m not suggesting that any asset literally traded at zero. I'm fully aware that no asset — whether it’s gold, oil, bitcoin, or the Dow Jones — has ever had a real market value of 0.00000.

Here are a few facts to clarify that:

• Bitcoin, at launch in January 2009, technically had no market price. It was mined for free. Once a market was established, the first recorded price was around $0.00099 (about 1/10 of a cent).
• The Dow Jones Industrial Average launched at 40.94 points on May 26, 1896, and hit its lowest closing value at 28.48 points on August 8 of the same year.

So when I refer to “0.00000,” I’m not talking about a historical fact — it’s a tool-based construct within technical analysis. It represents a theoretical origin — the visual zero — which Fibonacci extensions often use to define trend relationships. And understanding that “invisible start” helps interpret what’s coming next.

That being said, I want to make something very clear:
This is simply how I see it. I’m not trying to convince anyone. This method just works really well for me personally, and I’m sharing it in case it resonates with others — nothing more, nothing less.

Looking at it from that perspective, we may be seeing not just Primary or Cycle-degree waves, but possibly the early stages of a Grand Supercycle — especially with Bitcoin, where exponential growth and early-stage adoption can distort our perception of wave proportions.

This also connects with historical cycles in the Dow Jones:

• The Supercycle wave 4 was formed around July 1896.
• The fifth and final wave of that cycle peaked in early 1930 — a truncated top, marking the end of Grand Supercycle wave 1.
• Wave 2 (the correction) bottomed out in July 1934.

That creates a 1–2 structure at the highest wave degree, and I believe we’re seeing something similar unfolding in BTC — albeit over a compressed timeframe due to rapid technological acceleration.

Zooming in further:

• BTC from 2011 onward appears to be part of a Cycle-degree wave,
• I believe we’re currently in an extended Primary wave 3
• mirrors past cycles like the Dow in the 1920s or the NASDAQ in the late 1990s.

As with those historical cases, the key is to zoom out, avoid getting fixated on surface-level moves, and stay open to the idea that we might be part of a much larger unfolding structure.
That said, I completely agree with your point: flexibility, constant re-evaluation, and a strong understanding of wave structure and duration are essential. Thoughtful feedback like yours helps refine these counts — and strengthens the community as a whole.

Thanks again for engaging with the idea. I genuinely appreciate it.

Although not perfect, a momentum oscillator such as the RSI (Relative Strength Index) can be used to help determine the degree of wave.
The deeper and more oversold the momentum oscillator, the more significant the wave degree of either a wave-2 or wave-4 pullback.

Ralph Nelson Elliott died in 1948; and, technical indicators such as the RSI were invented during the late 1970s.
So, using technical indicators to determine Elliott Waves, may not be widely accepted or highly regarded by Elliott Wave purists.

For example...

• On a weekly/monthly timeframe chart, the deepest and oversold momentum oscillator readings, may indicate wave-2 or wave-4 pullbacks of either INTERMEDIATE or PRIMARY degree.
• On a monthly/quarterly timeframe chart, the deepest and oversold momentum oscillator readings, may indicate wave-2 or wave-4 pullbacks of either CYCLE or SUPERCYCLE degree.

 

[XenoxCapital]

Of course, no tool is perfect. Wave analysis requires flexibility and continuous revision to best align with the market’s dynamics. Thank you for sharing your insights; it enriches the discussion and hopefully helps everyone gain a clearer understanding. Regards

[xxxx123abcxxxx]

[josegines]

...

I wonder why you keep insisting on the bearish option.
And of course, the situation in Iran serves as an excuse for you to think that what you've been waiting for a year will finally happen.
According to you, the $114k is the key to everything. It will be the key to whether your bearish option expires, or, as always happens with Elliott, there is another option, which you have been timidly pushing into the background for many months.
Where you see a potential crisis due to the US bombing, others may see a play that the market has taken advantage of to liquidate longs and thus continue rising.
The $114k is the key.
Will we finally see a bullish option in this thread???

[xxxx123abcxxxx]

I wonder why you keep insisting on the bearish option.
And of course, the situation in Iran serves as an excuse for you to think that what you've been waiting for a year will finally happen.
According to you, the $114k is the key to everything. It will be the key to whether your bearish option expires, or, as always happens with Elliott, there is another option, which you have been timidly pushing into the background for many months.
Where you see a potential crisis due to the US bombing, others may see a play that the market has taken advantage of to liquidate longs and thus continue rising.
The $114k is the key.
Will we finally see a bullish option in this thread???

The chart and projection was posted 12 hours before the US bombed Iran.

Bullish scenario arises when either of the following occurs...

1. A daily/weekly close above $114,000; or,
2. A decline to around $65,000
 

[josegines]

I wonder why you keep insisting on the bearish option.
And of course, the situation in Iran serves as an excuse for you to think that what you've been waiting for a year will finally happen.
According to you, the $114k is the key to everything. It will be the key to whether your bearish option expires, or, as always happens with Elliott, there is another option, which you have been timidly pushing into the background for many months.
Where you see a potential crisis due to the US bombing, others may see a play that the market has taken advantage of to liquidate longs and thus continue rising.
The $114k is the key.
Will we finally see a bullish option in this thread???

The chart and projection was posted 12 hours before the US bombed Iran.

Bullish scenario arises when either of the following occurs...

1. A daily/weekly close above $114,000; or,
2. A decline to around $65,000
 

You've been waiting for BTC to fall to $50k for over a year, with or without an irregular flat.

And your only mention of a bullish alternative count is:
"that the bearish option will be invalidated above $114k."

This isn't Elliott, this is your bearish thread.

The norm in Elliott, especially in long-term terms, is to have two alternatives, one bullish and one bearish.

You've been using only one for a year: going for $50k.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5485551.msg64037630#msg64037630

[xxxx123abcxxxx]

You've been waiting for BTC to fall to $50k for over a year, with or without an irregular flat.

And your only mention of a bullish alternative count is:
"that the bearish option will be invalidated above $114k."

This isn't Elliott, this is your bearish thread.

The norm in Elliott, especially in long-term terms, is to have two alternatives, one bullish and one bearish.

You've been using only one for a year: going for $50k.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5485551.msg64037630#msg64037630

This is not my "bearish thread"

Personally, I think bitcoin may surpass the marketcap of gold; and, if that were to happen at today's gold price, then bitcoin would be around $1,200,000

https://companiesmarketcap.com/assets-by-market-cap/

[josegines]

You've been waiting for BTC to fall to $50k for over a year, with or without an irregular flat.

And your only mention of a bullish alternative count is:
"that the bearish option will be invalidated above $114k."

This isn't Elliott, this is your bearish thread.

The norm in Elliott, especially in long-term terms, is to have two alternatives, one bullish and one bearish.

You've been using only one for a year: going for $50k.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5485551.msg64037630#msg64037630

This is not my "bearish thread"

Personally, I think bitcoin may surpass the marketcap of gold; and, if that were to happen at today's gold price, then bitcoin would be around $1,200,000

https://companiesmarketcap.com/assets-by-market-cap/

It won't reach 1200,000 this year, or next.

However, it could rise to 200,000 or 300,000.

I'm here to see some lines drawn pointing upwards, to try to predict the new ATH, in date and price, but we've only been aiming for 50,000 for a year now.

No alternative count.

Two days left to see if BTC closes the week above $114,000.