BTC: Elliott Wave-based Fibonacci spiral analysis: 20-year bull?

Let's see how this chart holds up.

NOTE 1: For anyone who wants to take this chart and look into it, the Fibonacci spirals do move around in log, so I have a target (in yellow) on the chart. The chart is best scaled so the cream-colored arc intersects with that target. Then you'll be looking at the chart as I'm looking at it.
NOTE 2: This year has been a learning curve for me, in charting, and trading. I'm finding my way, but in summer I took the time to start for real a journey into Elliott wave analysis. There is much to learn there, and much remains difficult for me. My goal is to fully integrate standard Elliott wave analysis into my charting and trading. I'm not there yet, so this chart is tentative at best. It's an exploration. Nonetheless, it is based around Elliott wave guidelines.

EXPLANATION:

• 1. Despite according to Elliott wave guidelines as far as I can see, this chart may be unconventional from an Elliott wave analysis perspective. But it is based on one glaring point that until now I didn't see addressed in the longer timeframe Elliott wave counts: The 2017 peak has nothing to do with - at the degree level - the 2013 peak. It didn't get close to a valid target as a potential Wave 3 within the same wave degree as the presumed Wave 1 at the peak of the 2013 bull run.
  
  2. We can assume that the January 2015 bear market bottom is related to that 2013 peak, however, in coming in at around a 66% retracement, which is valid and expected for a Wave 2 retracement. So if the 2013 peak is Wave 1, the 2015 bear market bottom is Wave 2, in the same wave degree.
  
  3. Wave 1 appears to have had a textbook extension within its own sub-wave 3. I'm marking the 2013 peak and 2015 bear market bottom at Primary degree level. You could mark it at Cycle degree, but aside from notational convenience, I don't see why one would. It doesn't matter in the short term what wave degree you adopt on these pivots, but personally I don't think we can use Cycle degree to describe the first four years of price action on an asset, regardless halving events.
  
  4. If the 2017 peak was not related to the 2013 peak in wave degree, then what was it? I'm taking it as Intermediate 1 of Primary 3. The 2018 bear market bottom, coming in at a 61.8% retracement from the top to the bottom of Primary 2, would mark Intermediate 2. Everything that followed, to date, would then be at Minor degree. We're currently, in my view, in the fifth wave at Minor degree of the third wave at Intermediate degree of the third wave at Primary degree.
  
  5. This could all be conjecture if not perhaps underlined by one additional tool we can throw into the mix: the Fibonacci spiral. As anyone who has read _The Wave Principle_ by Frost and Prechter knows, the Fibonacci ratio is foundation of Elliott wave theory. What happens if we place a Fibonacci spiral on the October 2011 low of $2.21 and on the high of the 2013 bull run peak? And what happens if we place another on the same pivots running counter-clockwise? Two outcomes: a) The clockwise spiral seems to map the Primary Wave 2 bear market; b) The counter-clockwise spiral appears to reach out to 2031.
  
  6. With the working hypothesis of placing spirals in both rotational directions on the projected Primary degree waves, themselves derived from Primary 1 and 2, the whole chart was constructed. The levels used are the minimum expected extensions, according to Elliott wave theory, in the case of impulse waves (Primary 3, Primary 5), and the generally expected 0.382 retracement of a wave 4. This was then cross-referenced against two other tools: the Fib-based Time Trend tool, and a Schiff pitchfork placed on the Primary 1-2 pivot (hidden on the chart, but in the object tree if you open the chart yourself).
  
  7. Regarding the pitchfork, price should stay within the inner and outer bounds of the pitchfork when within the same wave degree. A break of the outer bound of the pitchfork in either direction signals a wave degree change. This is not strictly Elliott wave theory, but accords with observation routinely. I believe pitchforks used in this way is an advance on tradtional Elliott wave theory parallel channels, and has the advantage, also, of bring into the picture Fibonacci levels within the pitchfork itself. With the pitchfork placed on Primary 1 and 2, and zero on $2.21 and close to the date of BTC's creation, it's possible to find a channel within which all price has not only moved, but moved meaningfully. For example, the 2017 peak hit the outer edge of the inner bound, while both the 2015 and 2018 bear markets hit the opposite edge of the inner bound. The median line has also played a role, acting as resistance in June 2019, being broken in early 2021, and now standing as a resistance line price has to reclaim and hold, and I believe will. Usually one would look for an Original settings pitchfork. But the skew of 10 years of price history renders those settings irrelevant. An Original settings pitchfork shows price falling out of the inner bound just after the 2015 bear market bottom, and definitively leaving the outer bound in the 2018 bear market, hence leaving the wave degree. So while not directly useful to the whole picture, the Original settings pitchfork does, nonetheless, appear to substantiate to some extent the overall thesis here, that BTC has not completed even one Cycle degree wave. That competition will come in 2031.
  
  8. The Fib-based Time Trend tool, albeit with some level of experimentation, gives reads that are noteworthy if not conclusive to the time-based projection borne from the Fibonacci spirals. Overall, we have a picture that does accord with Elliott wave guidelines on impulse waves: Primary 3 would be the longest wave; Primary 2 was an expanding flat, whereas Primary 4 looks set to be a zig-zag, satisfying the guideline of alternation; Intermediate 4 looks set to come into the territory of Minor 4, while Primary 4 will come into the territory of Intermediate 4, and there is room in the pitchfork for Primary 4 to do a 0.236 retrace and remain in the same wave degree, albeit at the extreme outer bound. Meanwhile, Primary 3 sub-divides in ways that also accord with Elliott wave theory guidelines. Intermediate 3 of Primary 3 looks set to be the longest, with Intermediate 5 looking set to be the shortest.
  
  9. Headline dates ahead to watch out for:
  a) 1 March 2022. Minor 5 of Intermediate 3 of Primary 3 (what we know as the current bull run) peaks, reaching at least $185k, though I expect higher.
  b) 1 September 2022. Intermediate 4 of Primary 3 bottom, reaching $39k in a typical 0.382 wave 4 retrace.
  c) 1 May 2025. Peak of Intermediate 5 of Primary 3, reaching at least $3.2m per BTC.
  d) 1 December 2026. Primary 4 bottom at $136k.
  e) 1 August 2031. Primary 5 peak, completing Cycle wave 1, reaching at least $880m per BTC.
  f) 1 May 2034. Cycle degree wave 2 bottom, reaching at least $16.4k, if not lower. An -88% retrace, which is common to Elliott wave 2s, would see BTC reach $19.
  

10. What could possibly create this outcome? Elliott wave theory is more than crude price prediction. Price, to Elliotticians, is more than mere money. Rather, price reflects dynamics within the natural world, of which men and things are part. Markets are merely data recordings of natural growth and decay systems. These patterns of growth and decay have their own sequence, and appear astonishingly regular, and at the largest degree, predictable. From what has already been printed on the BTC chart, and from what it suggests about future price action, which is already waiting in the future data bank, but hasn't arrived as to the page in ink, one can only imagine something catastrophic. Total collapse or eclipse of the global monetary system; global war; systemic collapse of States and value systems, global debt crisis, total collapse of fiat currency, hyper-inflation, etc. Who knows. Perhaps an alien invasion. But it will be an exceptional circumstance of events for BTC to reach $880m (whatever that means at the time) and then collapse back to as low as $19. And of course, Cycle wave 3 would take it much higher, wherever Cycle wave 2 lands. And there would be Cycle wave 4, and Cycle wave 5, also. It's almost unfathomable, but appears also inevitable.

What do you think? I'm particularly interested to hear responses from those versed in Elliott wave theory. Is this depiction ludicrous? It appears so to me. Yet this is what the chart and Elliott wave theory says will happen. Or, to be precise, already happened; we just didn't arrive yet to that future.

Feel free to comment.