[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
File: 18 KB, 748x242, Bitcoin's X-ing ability May 2021.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
57757295 No.57757295 [Reply] [Original]

Wrote this Feb 20th but didn't post it and then sort of forgot to. Posting this now, in case BTC tops soon (near current price) as it'd be very interesting if we fairly accurately forecasted such a top back in May 2021.

Part 1 of 2:

Reminder that as far back as May 2021, we predicted BTC not hitting ATH again after bottoming. Most of you have probably forgotten.

Picrel – a super interesting and profound insight – was the first of many posts dealing with this issue, using these numbers: https://archive.is/0hrT9 (note "20 Feb" – like I said, meant to post this that day)

That archive link pic (the one used in the May 2021 post) was based on the April $64.8k top, which we back then assumed was THE top (we didn't predict the bullshit pump that occurred towards $69k, that began at about the same time a certain e-celeb added the BTC logo to his twatter account). Hence "120 / 20" – the "20" being the X-ing BTC did from 2018 bottom to $64840. Since the three instances of loss of "X-ing ability" or "mooning strength" was "5.3", "5" and "6", an estimate of a "5.5" was used which produced "20 / 3.63" so in other words an X-ing of 3.63 from the future bottom.

If we apply a 3.63 X-ing to 15.5 (15.5k) we get 56.265 which means BTC could pump to $56k from 15.5k. However "3.63" was based on the top being $64.8k, not $69k. Since we now know BTC reached $69k, we can recalculate that May 2021 projection to be a bit more accurate. It doesn't need to be super accurate, and the "5.5" loss in "mooning strength" or "X-ing ability" is just an estimate anyway (the loss could be 5 or 6 this time around; 5.5 is in the middle), but this will get us a more accurate result.

If we use "21" instead of "20", as that's closer to the X-ing from the 2018 bottom to the $69k top than a "20" X-ing, then we get a new X-ing number of 3.82 instead of the old 3.63 from May 2021 (because 21 divided by 5.5 = 3.82). And so we apply a 3.82 X-ing to 15.5 which gives us 59.21. So $59210. So, still no new ATH.

>> No.57757307
File: 59 KB, 655x527, 1686758064507162.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
57757307

>>57757295
Part 2 of 2:

That's of course using the estimation that the loss in BTC's "mooning strength" or "X-ing ability" this time around is 5.5, which is an estimate based on the previous times when BTC's loss was "5.3", "5", and "6" in chronological order. If this time around the loss is 6 (the highest which has occurred so far), then using 21 we get 3.5 and applying a 3.5 X-ing to 15.5 gives us 54.25. So $54250. If this time around the loss is 5 (the lowest which has occurred so far), then using 21 we get 4.2 and applying a 4.2 X-ing to 15.5 gives us 65.1. So $65100.

However to get a fairer and more honest middle estimate (the 5.5 number), the "120 / 20" aspect (of the May 2021 calculation) should also be recalculated using 21. Using 21 we get 5.714 instead of 6. This means the range is 5 to 5.714, not 5 to 6. The middle between 5 and 5.714 is 5.357. Recalculating again using "5.357" (instead of 5.5) from 21, instead of 3.82 we get 3.92. Applying a 3.92 X-ing to 15.5 gives us 60.76 as opposed to 59.21. So $60760 instead of $59210. If this time around the loss in "mooning strength" or "X-ing ability" is the exact same as the previous time, that is a "5.714" loss from 21, then we get the number 3.675. Applying 3.675 to 15.5 gives us 56.9625. So $57k. As you can see, the differences are small.

Naturally this time around the loss may be slightly more than 5.714 or slightly lower than 5. Considering the current BTCUSD market and the current situation with the S&P 500 (which looks pretty dumpy) and the USDT Dominance chart (zoomed out it looks like it bottomed and is going up), then it looks more likely the loss this time around is greater than 5.714 rather than lower than 5. Or closer to being 5.714 than being 5. So it seems BTC is either a few k away from topping or is topping right about where it is now.

>> No.57757330

>>57757307
>>57757295
You posted this last night and got BTFO for using 8th grade math as TA. Sub 10k soon right retard?

>> No.57757526

>>57757330
bulls are getting so euphoric

>> No.57757587

>>57757526
You say this like it's a slam dunk aren't bears the same ones that said ETFs were bearish? Genuinely kill yourself you sidelined oaf

>> No.57757652

>>57757587
>t. euphoric newfag with less than 1 btc

>> No.57758129

>>57757330
Mathlet detected. Also retard detected. The math this is based on is from before BTC even hit the 69k ATH.

>> No.57758223
File: 88 KB, 1406x641, b4b448d69b4f5227621f6645797eed18224f8dfd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
57758223

>>57758129
Here's the image OP linked. 69k hadn't even happened yet. This is from long before that.

>> No.57758685

>>57758129
>>57758223
Correct and if we check the hash of the pic https://archived.moe/biz/search/image/d23frU2ixxs79wLhVci5aQ%3D%3D/page/8/ we can see it was first posted on 29th April 2021 and then in May anons started talking about the implications of those numbers and the loss of moon strength and using this knowledge made projections for how much Bitcoin would pump after bottoming out.

>> No.57759338 [DELETED] 

>>57757295
I remember. We were probably basically correct in our assessment. I mean there isn't any logical reason for why the loss would be significantly lower time around or significantly higher for that matter.

>> No.57759608

>>57757295
I remember. We were probably basically correct in our assessment. I mean there isn't any logical reason for why the loss would be significantly lower this time, or significantly higher for that matter.

>> No.57759624

>>57757295
reposting this doesn't make your take any less retarded btw

>> No.57759732

>>57757295
Please explain how this math is any different than me using chicken bones to divine market cycles.

>> No.57759887

>>57758223
According to this chart this cycle BTC ath should be around 100k?

>> No.57760232

>>57759887
no

>> No.57760326

>>57758685
Yo why does this dude sound like the guy who said 10k BTC will happen because 3 bears said so in the past on /biz/ and cherry picked threads from the archives?

>> No.57760353

>>57760232
each cycle diminishes by 5-6x gains from bottom to top so last cycle was 20x from bottom to top so this cycle will be 3.33x-4x from 15k bottom to top.

it's an incredibly retarded logic that has no accuracy. Op is trying to say the top is already in for this bull cycle because of the diminishing returns

>> No.57760389

>>57760353
>Op is trying to say the top is already in for this bull cycle because of the diminishing returns
yeah, and he's right
muh $250k btc is retarded and not gonna happen

>> No.57760393

>>57757295
Total bollocks

>> No.57760405

>>57760389
100-120k is in the realm of possibility

>> No.57760418

>>57760389
Still feel like you're sidelined

>> No.57760456

kek imagine trying to call the top before the halving

>> No.57760483

>>57760456
what's happening now is the halving pump, dude

>> No.57760499

>>57757295
>>57757307
none of your b.s matters cause fiat is trash and will stay trash fundamentally. 1M dollars is worthless air numbers out of thin air scam ponzi pyramid.

>> No.57760502
File: 226 KB, 1024x1024, ojjrgAbPBH.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
57760502

>>57760456
dude imagine thinking a halving will make the price go up that only works if more people use it but literally nobody cares nobody uses crypto except for illegal activity imagine thinking that its not going to go to zero like actually unironically thinking that

>> No.57760516

>>57760499
you're right
but btc is also worthless air numbers lol
if you want to weather inflation, you need hard assets

>> No.57760668

>>57757295
>>57757307
Usually /biz/ is pretty much spot on when it comes to long term things like these.

This by the way reminds me for some reason of that guy who predicted in the very early stage of the bear market with some extremely basic TA how long the bear market would last and in the end he was correct, being off only by a few weeks. All the newfags hyperseethed at him at went "nooo you can't just know how long the bear market will last using such simple methods, waaaah!". Funny stuff.

>> No.57760732

>>57757295
so your saying we've already topped now at like 60k-61k?

>> No.57760740
File: 98 KB, 983x694, 1707507187414314.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
57760740

>>57760389
>ETFs draining a week of pre-halving block rewards every day is bearish, ok?!
Cope.

>> No.57760779

>>57760516
Like infinite supply 2% inflation shit rocks? BTC is the first fixed unit of account, it's the literal opposite of "worthless air numbers"

>> No.57760805

>>57760732
yup
maybe a little higher but it's basically the top

>> No.57760818

>>57760732
Yes. And next bull run will be even worse lol

>> No.57761301

>>57760732
The math, generated by Bitcoin's price action throughout it's lifetime, says BTC is pumping from 15.5k to somewhere between 57k and 65k.

OP acknowledges that the loss in bottom-to-top pump strength which has taken place after each ATH might be slightly lower than the lowest we've seen so far or slightly higher than the highest we've seen so far, so he's saying it's possible BTC might pump from 15.5k to a top that's a few thousand more than 65k or to a top that's a few thousand less than 57k.

We know it went above that 57k, but OP wrote his text on February 20th when BTC was at 52k. This is a thread which could and should've been made shortly after the 15.5k bottom. It's pretty late for this thread now. But the math is the same now as it was at 15.5k.

>> No.57761424

>>57761301
>>57760805
>>57760818
ok so explain why it shouldn't teleport to 80k by next month?
after every 20% correction we've had since the start of this bull run, a 100% rally follows.

>> No.57761510

>>57761424
or let alone, ETF inflows rising every day... id be interested to see the data be the end of the week if it starts to decline.

>> No.57761771

>>57761510
>he thinks ETFs are actually buying bitcoin and storing them in little ledgers
oh sweetie

>> No.57761808

>>57760389
BTC will go to $1m and beyond in your lifetime

>> No.57762220

>>57761771
Custodial wallets have been doxxed, dumb mentally ill bobo

>> No.57762794

>>57761808
sure it will sweetie
then you can finally have sex :^)