/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.9559655]

I was thinking we would go much lower, but it seems that even /biz/ has reached the depression phase of the cycle.

[Anonymous No.9560504]

The secret is to always be depressed

[Anonymous No.9560531]

>>9559655
does anybody have any historical charts of real depressions that show this pattern is real? I've seen this exact pic like 1000x times but never seen it overlaid over even one historical event, let alone a series of them to prove it's a real pattern.

[Anonymous No.9560533]

We're in capitulation. We're about 2 or 3k away from the bottom, though. Then it's slow bleed / sideways for a year.

[Anonymous No.9560585]

>>9560531

[Anonymous No.9560642]

I unironically believe we are in the Disbelief phase. Everyone is so salty about prices, so sure about sideways, so salty about consensus.
Noone believes BTC could go up back to 9k at this point.
But all the fundamentals seem to move into place for the next rally

[Anonymous No.9560658]

>>9560585
can I have like 5 more... I knew it would be the dotcom bubble.

[Anonymous No.9560681]

>>9560504
he gets is

[Anonymous No.9560721]

>>9560642
Whatever man, the run to almost 10k was clearly a sucker's rally.

[Anonymous No.9560723]

>>9560658
Check out the 1942 Bulgarian turnip bubble.

[Anonymous No.9560729]

>>9560642
>all the fundamentals

[Anonymous No.9560794]

>>9560721
Dont even disagree, there has to be one each cycle.

>>9560729
>institutional money coming in
>extreme amounts of development being done while prices go sideways
>etherum becoming insanely populated with decent projects, working on PoS and Sharding
>rollouts of mainnets like EOS and VeChain
>oracles coming in

Something needs to happen, might not be until June, but something does need to happen.

[Anonymous No.9560830]

>>9560794
i don't even know how to help you you're so far gone

[Anonymous No.9560845]

>>9560723
>tfw it's not real

[Anonymous No.9560873]

>>9560658
Here

[Anonymous No.9560893]

>>9560845
>mfw I've lost more of my portfolio, which was my life savings, than the people who invested at the very top of the Great Depression and sold at the exact bottom, and I'm still coming out ok

[Anonymous No.9560976]

>>9560830
try it anon

>>9560845
Most of these charts have either nothing to do with crypto or are based on presumtions. It couldnt be that digital currency is an entire new asset class? the log scale pricechart just dont make sense for a comparison, since bitcoins were created out of nowhere, strictly speaking with a value of 0. nobody knows what the "supposed" value for them is, so they just set one to blow off a chart out of proportions in order to achieve
>quality journalism

The other chart with the "years from peak" actually just speaks to me in how pushed the narrative of the bubble is. This actually might just be how the cryptomarket will continue to behave, we have seen this cycle historically, and it has ALWAYS rebounded. These bubbles did not. And given current TA I dont think the proposition of it going where it came from is at all supported by the market itself, which is much more valueable information than any sort of "ill just put this behind some historical bubbles in easy to evaluate assets like shares of a company or fucking tulips"

>>9560873
>"institutional money"
im sorry, do you even know what that means?

[Anonymous No.9561075]

>>9560893
Do you mean in % or in dollars adjusted for inflation?

>>9560976
>Most of these charts have either nothing to do with crypto
Yeah I know,. I'm trying to validate OP's pic, and THEN if it's validated I'll see if it fits Crypto. And as far as I see it doesn't even fit to any of the charts I have...
But then again I haven't crunched the numbers or anything

>and it has ALWAYS rebounded. These bubbles did not
Of course, since there isn't total saturation of crypto yet, it's still a tiny tiny percentage of world wealth, where that point of saturation exists is an impossible question to answer because it's dependent on so many variables - many of which involve good ol' marketing.

>>9560873
>Historical charts
>shows bitcoin's current price
>shows a "classic bubble" without showing historical examples
See above: I'm trying to see if OP's pic is historically accurate, and then see if it's applicable to crypto, which as they other guy I replied to said may not be since crypto is a new asset class, and as I said - because it hasn't reached market saturation yet comparative to other asset classes

[Anonymous No.9561090]

>>9560794
>Something needs to happen, might not be until June, but something does need to happen.
kek, nothing "needs" to happen. Or perhaps that "something" will be an acceleration of the dumping that resumed after YET ANOTHER double-top (second lower-high double top... bounces keep getting smaller).

[Anonymous No.9561122]

>>9560504
fpbp as usual

[Anonymous No.9561146]

why does every chart look like eliot wave to me

[Anonymous No.9561159]

>>9561146
because you can zoom to any point on any chart and see it 50% of the time

it's only in hindsight that it's 'useful'

[Anonymous No.9561185]

>>9560976
ok i will try
>when 0,1% of "institutional money" decides to speculate on bitcoin that doesnt mean what you think it means

>all the implementations like casper etc. take multiple years to finish and even then it is way too inefficient to replace 99,9% systems of doing things

>where you see decent projects i see cryptokitties and very niche networks which can operate with just 10000 people being part of it

>rollout of mainnets does not mean that suddenly a facebook will appear out of nowhere

[Anonymous No.9561190]

>>9561146
Because humans are excellent at "seeing" (that is, fabricating) patterns, even in literal random noise. For example, shapes in clouds, paint swirls, etc.

[Anonymous No.9561284]

>>9561190
>Anonymous
i see

[Anonymous No.9561463]

>>9561090
of course, nothing in principal needs to happen, but all the movement wouldnt make sense for everything to crash and burn when in my humble opinion something like ETH is just too useful, even in the real world, to die just like that. (Assuming ETH will be able to fix its problems this year or next, which im sure it will.)

>>9561185
thank you!

>when 0,1% of "institutional money" decides to speculate on bitcoin that doesnt mean what you think it means
The sheer volume on that alone should be great for the market, theres people much more capable than me being quoted that crypto as asset class are actually uncorrelated to every other assetclass we currently know, and hence a great thing to hedge yourself against trouble with, although we still have to see a marketcrash next to crypto in my opinion.

>all the implementations like casper etc. take multiple years to finish and even then it is way too inefficient to replace 99,9% systems of doing things
some other cryptos have already proven just how efficient they are, look at the usage of xlm and xrp, but I honestly think a trustless network of smartcontracts is benefitial to automation, the troubles ETH has are fees, scalability, you are right on all those points. I dont see how they couldn't be fixed though, and I don't see how there couldn't be a better protocol than ETH entirely if it is really needed.

>where you see decent projects i see cryptokitties and very niche networks which can operate with just 10000 people being part of it
I'll admit im an optimist. But just for a comparison, you could argue against facebook being a decent project in its beginning because it was a waste of time and had no decent scale or way to make money yet.

>rollout of mainnets does not mean that suddenly a facebook will appear out of nowhere
Nope, but it could? Supplychains are a real usecase, smart contracts too.

[Anonymous No.9561562]

>>9561463
yeah key part is always long term

[Anonymous No.9561737]

>>9559655
It's time to stop being depressed forever.
Hanging out with Sayori!