This is Part 4 of my epic series breaking down every major, relevant Segment in Bitcoins' price history, and explaining how they fit into the 'Historical Elliot Wave Count.' To understand what this series of posts is all about, as well as the specific analysis of the first three Segments covered, see parts 1-3:
The Life of Bitcoin: The definitive Historical Count Pt.1
The Life of Bitcoin: The definitive Historical Count Pt.2
The Life of Bitcoin: The definitive Historical Count Pt.3
In short, what my 'Historical Count' implies is nothing less than astonishing: Essentially Bitcoin has just completed a decade long, (Running Triple Three) Wave 2 Correction and is now in an extremely powerful Wave 3 that should take the price to over 10 Million $ per coin, with the bulk of this appreciation (if not all) occurring within the next 5-10 years. See my published chart (which preceded the series) to view what the massive, Wave 2 Correction looks like when zoomed out, as well as a bit of the rationale that supports this Count:
Snapshot
Published Chart
And now...Segment 4.
Disclaimer: Let me be clear. Any and all (good faith) skepticism, criticism, or other is not only welcome, but encouraged. With that said, I will not enable nor engage with comments that fail to stay on topic (of the given Segment or larger Historical Count). It should not be controversial that my analysis is rooted in Elliot Wave principles that were layed out in the 1980s (and have since been widely accepted). To be specific, if you are not at least familiar with the following book and/or the core concepts that are presented, in all honesty, it will be difficult to take your arguments against my post seriously.
"Mastering Elliot Wave"
'Presenting the Neely Method: The First Scientific, Objective Approach to Market Forecasting with the Elliot Wave Theory'
by Glen Neely with Eric Hall
Similarly, to disregard the modern (within the last 5 decades) developments contributed to this field of study, and pretend such is a valid criticism to my Historical Count on Bitcoin is beyond silly (feel free to express your views on the progress that has been made elsewhere). A valid criticism will stick to my actual Historical Count within the realm of what is widely accepted to be considered Elliot Wave Analysis.
With that said, while I will entertain and engage with such a criticism, and I will gladly explain anything you might not understand about a given chart, Segment (analysis), or my Historical Count, I will continue to adhere to the attitude of 'put up or shut up.' Demonstrating an Elliot Wave Count of any substance (as opposed to the 9/10 charts you will find on this site which plop on a bunch of letters and numbers under the guise of Elliot Wave Analysis), let alone a Historical Count that manages to succesfully integrate all relevant price history, *is extremely hard*. Conversely, proclaiming "your count is 'wrong'" and cherry picking some minutia from a source you hardly understand, is extremely easy. As I have long maintained (and yes, I am the greatest ever): There is something wrong with EVERY Count...the question is which Count has by far the least wrong with it. Understand this, and you might just have a shot at actually counting waves.
On the other end of the extreme, please due note the following two paragraphs before we begin.
While I have read numerous books on the topic of Elliot Wave Analysis, none succeded in leaving a lasting impression on me, or even, in rivaling other books I have read about the broader topic of Technical Analysis. Yet, the I book mentioned earlier, has had, by far, the biggest influence on my work. I have spoken at length about the importance of reading this book for *subtext. In my own charts and analysis, at times, you might catch subtle inferences to seemingly new concepts that are not EXPLICITLY (yet *are implicitly) mentioned or presented within the book I mentioned earlier. There are, however, a few new concepts that I have broached, explored, and/or perfected in my work.
For the most part, I do my best to clearly point out when and where that might be the case, and when I do not succeed in that regard, it is largely due to the reality that I *have mentioned these new concepts in the past, thus, to rehash these sorts of stipulations on every chart or post would be overkill. In conclusion, I will continue to maintain that most of what I present is largely helping to fill in the gaps of what is either, not sufficiently covered, or, is said via subtext. In the case of the latter, should you disagree with my assertion, I am quite happy to take the credit for having invented it : ) In the case of the former, reader be advised: There is a swath of new concepts, clarifications, terms, and extensions thereof, laid out in this post with regard to the triangle and its' Thrust. I believe they are of huge significance and practical value, you can be the judge. On the same note, feel free to check out the addendum to this post, following the Chart snapshots, titled: "Dealing With Elephant In The Room." And now, let us begin.
Title for Segment 4: "Wall Street gets out and the Thrust she told you not to worry about."
The above snapshot was taken from within my published chart "LARP Capital: Still Bearish Dre Bitcoin Update" (below)
At the heart of all Elliot Wave Analysis, and more broadly, Technical Analysis, is market psychology. Supply-Demand dynamics, Fundamentels, Geopolitical events, etc all play a part, of course, but if you are on this site, you well know that Emotions such as Fear, Greed, or Hype, in addition to Momentum, Trends, Price Action, and Cycles are what rule the markets. Segment 4 represents the 'come down' from Bitcoins' second biggest rally to date (after the 2013 'bubble' and with a weight put upon liquidity and relevance). Unfortunately, the CME's offering of Bitcoin Futures would prove to be (in a sense) Wall Streets' big exit. In reality, it was much closer to a 'sell the news' type of event, that would provide a good enough excuse for all the non-believers in Technical Analysis to explain the move 'post-facto.' However, as much as I embrace the validity of what it is we all do here (some good and some, well, not so good), there was a very real economics angle to the sell-off that followed the CME listing and, more importantly, eventual capitulation below what was believed to be (at the time, and in truth ultimately was (just not for traders)), strong support for the price at $6xxx.
So you see, Wall Street or not, this was the first time Bitcoin had ever seen such significant profit-taking, at anywhere close to the magnitude of sheer total $ volume (before the run up it was an incredibly tiny, illiquid market). As someone who lives and breathes markets, let me say that such a process, especially now that it is in the rearview mirror, was a very, very good thing for the 'maturity' of the Bitcoin market. Not only did this present the investing public with a real time market stress-test of sorts (really a test-test, ehr, not a drill) with regard to the type of Volume that could be absorbed by the now 'Gox-less' market, but it also allowed for the true demand that had been sitting idley by (as the market doubled, and then doubled again, etc amidst the run up) to begin to accumulate not just once, but twice in the later Covid-19 'flash crash.'
It is with the same knowlege-base that I can (also) tell you that what we saw as far as 'getting out' goes, over the last couple of years, can not be mentioned in the same conversation. In Segment 4, we saw an epic profit-taking event that was, in all honesty, a smart one regardless of how high the price goes going forward, and believe me: its' going to go high, very very high. Millions high. Ten(s) of Millions high. The 2018 seller(s) were selling coins bought at a cost basis in the low hundreds of dollars price, if not lower (no I have not seen their accounting records, nor do I know who they were, I just know markets). And it is not as if you come by that sort of coin, and leave yourself with none.
When you realize that if not right, I am at least pretty damn close to right, and combine that with the unique economics that apply to the first ever digitally-scarce asset, it might just start to click that ever since Segment 4 (*and especially now*), pretty much everyone of material significance coin-wise, that might have wanted to sell (in a big way at prices anywhereee close to these) has.already.sold. On the other side of the coin, so to speak (pun complied with), there are many who wish to have a materially significant amount of coins (relative to the first group) who for the most part have not even begun.
But I digress. Segment 4 was riddled with tons of drama that spilt over from the climactic resolution of the 'Fork Wars.' Bitcoin escaped the panic, confusion, and uncertainty of it all in a rather exciting way, but how it would all settle out in the longer term remained to be seen. Or at least that was the party-line, as the power brokers of old scurried about in the shadows, scrambling to concoct the next great Bitcoin Antithesis: CBDCs (and family of frankensteined, semi-private, propietary 'blockchains' (in theory (not code lol)). Central Banker-Punks theorize code as the saying would have it, and that they would, but with a twist. Enter Libra.
With the demand that had sat idlely by all throughout the 2017 run up having gladly absorbed the first 2018 'leg down' in prices (hint), only to want more, much more, and starting to get antsy about it (afterall, even now, you can only really buy so much coin at once without some 'marker maker' snapping at you that they are all sold out (wait...what? that's not how it works...is it? You mean to tell me those aren't actually people on the other side my trade? ehr well, kinda sorta, ehr, indirectly, and u know its' in your benefit trust us and all)) the price gradually (and then suddenly) began to creep up.
And you know what happens when the price starts to go up...excuses need to be 'found' for such blasphemy. Where was I again? Oh, right, Libra. So you see, Libra was the 'cause' (apparently) of Bitcoins' rise, despite the fact it has quite literally, absolutely nothing to do with it, if you hop back in the delorian you will find this brilliant narrative. Nevermind that these sort of 'leaks' (ultimately leading to articles ultimately leading to hearings) happen to have come mid-way through the rise, heck, it was the best they could do. Libra, if we should be so lucky to have this frankenstein, would 'legitimise' Bitcoin, ehr, or something like that (don't ask me I didn't put it together).
In the essence of time, in what will be yet another dense post, I will bring it all together with a brief summary of the rest of the Segment: After rising from $3xxx to over $14,xxx, Bitcoin (unsurprisingly (yes got that one too)) took a breather, and eventually began to pull back. But there was a problem: after a nice 50% correction...that pesky demand I keep talking about wanted more! With the price starting to creep back up, again, no more coins for sale, and esoteric problems popping up in the plumbing of the banking system often referred to as the Repo market (surely unrelated *wink*) 'something had to be done.' And with that, I leave you.
...think hard.
The following Chart Snapshots present my Count for Segment 4. Beginning with the heading:
"WHAT MAKES A TRIANGLE LIMITING OR NON-LIMITING? (including new Language, Terms, and Concepts that help fill in the gaps and more)"
I have included and applied what is a new focus of study I have been developing, here as it applies to Contracting Triangles, and more specifically with regard to the Thrust. I should also add that, even under the first heading:
"WHAT MAKES A TRIANGLE LIMITING OR NON-LIMITING? (Summary and Application of known concepts)"
There is a bit of new language and terms, yet here, in relation to known (yet fairly esoteric) concepts that have long needed to be clarified. My goal in all of this is, in addition to removing lots of unneccessary confusion, is two-fold: To help provoke and answer the question of just why exactly most of these 'rules' exist in the first place, and, to build upon the foundations of what Neely and others have provided by using (and eXtending) essentially the same Logic.
It's all in the charts...enjoy.
SEGMENT 4 CLASSIFICATION
Contracting Triangle:
-Time, Price-based Fibonacci Relationships (the minimum requirements needed to qualify as a Contracting Triangle)
Horizontal, Contracting Triangle:
-Wave Type: Horizontal Contracting Triangle
-Wave Type: Horizontal Contracting Triangle sub-waves
WHAT MAKES A TRIANGLE LIMITING OR NON-LIMITING? (Summary and Application of known concepts)
Contracting Triangle, Limiting vs Non-Limiting:
-What makes a triangle Limiting or Non-Limiting?
Note: Be careful with the phrase "using the width of the triangle" in Approach A (Congestion Oriented). While the the statement is broadly correct, from a mathematics perspective, a better way to phrase it would be: 'based upon the Apex Time Zone excluding Wave E.' In other words: based upon the *relavent width of the triangle (from the end of Wave D to the Apex).
-The Segment 4 Non-Limiting Contracting Triangle
Construction (Approach A): Non-Limiting
-The Segment 4 Non-Limiting Contracting Triangle
Construction (Approach B): Limiting
-Construction (Comparing Approaches)
WHAT MAKES A TRIANGLE LIMITING OR NON-LIMITING? (including new Language, Terms, and Concepts that help fill in the gaps and more)
Contracting Triangle Thrust: Limiting vs Non-Limiting:
-What makes a *Thrust* Limiting or Non-Limiting?
Defining and Refining The Thrust
-What makes a *Thrust* Limiting or Non-Limiting?
The Timeliness of a sub-thrust, Apex Price Climax, and Settlement
-What makes a *Thrust* Limiting or Non-Limiting?
Thrust Classification: Limiting and Non-Limiting Thrust Types (General)
-What makes a *Thrust* Limiting or Non-Limiting?
Thrust Classification: Limiting and Non-Limiting Thrust Types (Emulation Pt.1)
-What makes a *Thrust* Limiting or Non-Limiting?
Thrust Classification: Limiting and Non-Limiting Thrust Types (Emulation Pt.2)
-What makes a *Thrust* Limiting or Non-Limiting?
Thrust Classification: Process of Post Constructive Logic
Post Constructive Logic: The Segment 4 Horizontal, Contracting Triangle Thrust
-Post Constructive Logic
Stage a. extent of thrust: Non-Limiting
-Post Constructive Logic:
Stage b. thrust behavior
-The Segment 4 Non-Limiting Contracting Triangle Limiting vs Non-Limiting (all perspectives). More on this snapshot and the larger topic of this Post can be found in the text below titled: "Dealing With Elephant In The Room."
*The symbol ~ should be taken to mean 'around.'
**As always, in accordance with proper measurement as it applies to the Elliot Wave Principle, all numerical value will be presented as integers (whole numbers).
Dealing With Elephant In The Room
The elephant in the room is that a triangle can be Categorized as both *Limiting and Non Limiting*, in Construction, and more broadly, in any context. Whether or not you agree, as shown earlier (in the context of Construction): Such an allowance is embedded in the Logic. Being forced to concede that a triangle can indeed exist within both Categories, will likely be a hard pill to swallow for any who would argue that a triangle MUST belong to *only one* of the two Categories (Limiting vs Non Limiting). If you would consider yourself among those supporting such a binarily-oriented premise, you might just want to reasses where it is coming from.
Perhaps there is something deeper going on: this allowance (logic-wise) was actually there for a reason. Similarly, more important than questioning whether a triangle is Limiting or not, is why it even matters. To argue that a triangle must unequivocaly be one or the other, yet fail to answer such a basic question, reveals just how silly this, and all other (Elliot Wave-related) orthodoxical rigidities, are. Conversely, it is easy to state why such a premise *does not matter*, and all it requires is an understanding of the purpose of these contemplations in the first place.
There seems to be a general consensus that the triangle itself must be Categorized as Limiting or Non Limiting, but not both, and its' (subsequent) Thrust plays but a small part in the validation or invalidation thereof. In other words, a belief that the triangle is what's important, as opposed to the Thrust. Yet, there is an easily discernable logic that provides the rationale needed to justify a reversal of the above equation, which again, speaks to purpose. I am here to tell you that not only can a triangle indeed be Categorized as *both, but more importantly, the entire equation is backwards: The *triangles' status as Limiting or Non Limiting is, in reality, hardly even important, it is only as important as its' contribution towards predicting and evaluating the Thrust. A seemingly obvious statement lost on those who support a strict, boolean Categorizating of the *triangle itself as either Limiting or Non Limiting, a process which entails performing lengthy, time-consuming approaches in order to reach such a determination. The Thrust of a triangle is not limited by which side of the rules its' Construction happens to narrowly fall on (using either approach), thus: To greatly overestimate the significance of such an outcome--is to confuse what should be the goal (predicting the Thrust)--with the means to achieving it (rigidly quantifying the extent of congestion 'into' the Apex of a triangle).
To further clarify the above, not only are those engaged in the means failing to acknowledge the true dynamic at play with regard to the relative importance of triangle and Thrust, and in turn, the goal of these means, but, similarly, they are failing to appreciate just how ineffective the means even are in achieving the goal. So, just what exactly is there to back up my claims? Well, in order to deduce the purpose of these approaches (for the sake of brevity I will refer to them indistinctly), it should go without saying that dissecting just what it is they are actually doing, will help reveal their purpose. Keep in mind, I am addressing their true nature, as opposed to what others may or may not be conscious of.
Using either approach to analyzing a triangles' Construction (within the context of the elephant in the room (there are two aproaches which are covered in depth under the heading:
"WHAT MAKES A TRIANGLE LIMITING OR NON-LIMITING? (Summary and Application of known concepts)"
in the first snapshot, and farther picked apart in my applying them to the Segment 4 Bitcoin Contracting Triangle)), there is a Direct determination as to a Limiting vs Non Limiting status by, in either case, performing a mathematical calculation. Common to both of these calculations is the termination of Wave E, as well as, the triangles' Apex. So, given this commonality, it is only be logical to ask: Why are these points used? What is it that is so special about them in particular? The answer is that they each provide a vital point in Time, one (the termination of Wave E) representing the initiation of a Departure from the triangle, and one representing another, later, point in time that will be of significance in evaluating all post-departure Price Action. In other words, the entire purpose of the determination is actually to gleem some type of anticipatory information about the triangles' *Thrust! Even the language used for the labels "Limiting" and "Non Limiting" is, indisputably, focused on the Thrust (as opposed to the triangle itself). Having internalised all of this, the question of which Category the *triangle belongs to, quite clearly, becomes an irrelevant one!
Some would argue, from the perspective of Position, there is still a bit of relevance in asking the above question, yet, they too are wrong: The stigma this perspective places upon a triangle is actually *detrimental. To define a triangle as Limiting based upon its' Position as a Wave 4 or B, or to Preconstructively state that a Wave 4 or B can only manifest as a Limiting triangle, is, in either case, a ridiculous notion. For instance, an eXtended Wave 5, or an Elongated Wave C (as in Wave C of an Elongated Flat/Elongated Zig Zag), each can shatter the Price limitations associated with Limiting triangles, and conversely, in rare cases, the Thrust of a triangle that is (will be, or would be,) found in any other Position *can conform with these same limitations. Not only does the above demonstrate why the binarily-oriented Categorization of a triangle as Limiting vs Non Limiting is a waste of time, it even positively argues that a *triangle can exist within both categories! And in fact, in such circumstances whereby a triangle exists within both Categories: What is generally perceived to be a contradiction, or more importantly, an error in analysis, is precisely the correct analysis. Thus, the again, binarily-oriented Categorization of a triangle as Limiting vs Non Limiting, and the calculations that are part in parcel to it, are not only a waste of time, but they are actually detrimental in that they misconstrue the truth about how Position relates to the results of these useless calculations, done in the name of attributing a status to the triangle itself.
All you really need to know *about the triangle itself*, with regard to the Thrust, is that its' Apex, the 'width' of its' biggest leg (Price-wise), and the 'Timeliness' of Departure from the triangle, provide important data points to be used in actively predicting and evaluating the Thrust. The entire rigamaral of performing these two different approaches to determining a triangles' status as Limiting or Non Limiting is, can simply be replaced with the following statement: The more congested the Price Action is into the Apex, the less room there is for a Thrust to occur.
Now, all of that is not to say the Construction of a triangle itself is entirely irrelevant, it is, indeed, fairly important for two reasons. The first reason the triangles' Construction is important is because it contributes to the PRIMARY differentiating factor regarding its' Classification: 'How the triangle Channels.' For a more thorough explanation of this concept see here:
The second reason the triangles' Construction is important, is because it Geometrically dictates the myriad of ways in which its' Apex can occur, which, in addition to the 'Timeliness' of Departure from the triangle, and the 'width' of its' biggest leg (Price-wise), help predict and evaluate the *Thrust. For more on this review the snapshots following the heading:
"WHAT MAKES A TRIANGLE LIMITING OR NON-LIMITING? (including new Language, Terms, and Concepts that help fill in the gaps and more)"
Stay tuned for Parts 5 and 6 of the series "The Life of Bitcoin: The definitive Historical Count," with each new part we have incrementally approached the current Price Action. To conclude the series I will be rehashing much of what preceded the series which revolves around a more 'all encompassing' perspective of this Count.
The Life of Bitcoin: The definitive Historical Count Pt.1
The Life of Bitcoin: The definitive Historical Count Pt.2
The Life of Bitcoin: The definitive Historical Count Pt.3
In short, what my 'Historical Count' implies is nothing less than astonishing: Essentially Bitcoin has just completed a decade long, (Running Triple Three) Wave 2 Correction and is now in an extremely powerful Wave 3 that should take the price to over 10 Million $ per coin, with the bulk of this appreciation (if not all) occurring within the next 5-10 years. See my published chart (which preceded the series) to view what the massive, Wave 2 Correction looks like when zoomed out, as well as a bit of the rationale that supports this Count:
Snapshot
Published Chart
And now...Segment 4.
Disclaimer: Let me be clear. Any and all (good faith) skepticism, criticism, or other is not only welcome, but encouraged. With that said, I will not enable nor engage with comments that fail to stay on topic (of the given Segment or larger Historical Count). It should not be controversial that my analysis is rooted in Elliot Wave principles that were layed out in the 1980s (and have since been widely accepted). To be specific, if you are not at least familiar with the following book and/or the core concepts that are presented, in all honesty, it will be difficult to take your arguments against my post seriously.
"Mastering Elliot Wave"
'Presenting the Neely Method: The First Scientific, Objective Approach to Market Forecasting with the Elliot Wave Theory'
by Glen Neely with Eric Hall
Similarly, to disregard the modern (within the last 5 decades) developments contributed to this field of study, and pretend such is a valid criticism to my Historical Count on Bitcoin is beyond silly (feel free to express your views on the progress that has been made elsewhere). A valid criticism will stick to my actual Historical Count within the realm of what is widely accepted to be considered Elliot Wave Analysis.
With that said, while I will entertain and engage with such a criticism, and I will gladly explain anything you might not understand about a given chart, Segment (analysis), or my Historical Count, I will continue to adhere to the attitude of 'put up or shut up.' Demonstrating an Elliot Wave Count of any substance (as opposed to the 9/10 charts you will find on this site which plop on a bunch of letters and numbers under the guise of Elliot Wave Analysis), let alone a Historical Count that manages to succesfully integrate all relevant price history, *is extremely hard*. Conversely, proclaiming "your count is 'wrong'" and cherry picking some minutia from a source you hardly understand, is extremely easy. As I have long maintained (and yes, I am the greatest ever): There is something wrong with EVERY Count...the question is which Count has by far the least wrong with it. Understand this, and you might just have a shot at actually counting waves.
On the other end of the extreme, please due note the following two paragraphs before we begin.
While I have read numerous books on the topic of Elliot Wave Analysis, none succeded in leaving a lasting impression on me, or even, in rivaling other books I have read about the broader topic of Technical Analysis. Yet, the I book mentioned earlier, has had, by far, the biggest influence on my work. I have spoken at length about the importance of reading this book for *subtext. In my own charts and analysis, at times, you might catch subtle inferences to seemingly new concepts that are not EXPLICITLY (yet *are implicitly) mentioned or presented within the book I mentioned earlier. There are, however, a few new concepts that I have broached, explored, and/or perfected in my work.
For the most part, I do my best to clearly point out when and where that might be the case, and when I do not succeed in that regard, it is largely due to the reality that I *have mentioned these new concepts in the past, thus, to rehash these sorts of stipulations on every chart or post would be overkill. In conclusion, I will continue to maintain that most of what I present is largely helping to fill in the gaps of what is either, not sufficiently covered, or, is said via subtext. In the case of the latter, should you disagree with my assertion, I am quite happy to take the credit for having invented it : ) In the case of the former, reader be advised: There is a swath of new concepts, clarifications, terms, and extensions thereof, laid out in this post with regard to the triangle and its' Thrust. I believe they are of huge significance and practical value, you can be the judge. On the same note, feel free to check out the addendum to this post, following the Chart snapshots, titled: "Dealing With Elephant In The Room." And now, let us begin.
Title for Segment 4: "Wall Street gets out and the Thrust she told you not to worry about."
The above snapshot was taken from within my published chart "LARP Capital: Still Bearish Dre Bitcoin Update" (below)
At the heart of all Elliot Wave Analysis, and more broadly, Technical Analysis, is market psychology. Supply-Demand dynamics, Fundamentels, Geopolitical events, etc all play a part, of course, but if you are on this site, you well know that Emotions such as Fear, Greed, or Hype, in addition to Momentum, Trends, Price Action, and Cycles are what rule the markets. Segment 4 represents the 'come down' from Bitcoins' second biggest rally to date (after the 2013 'bubble' and with a weight put upon liquidity and relevance). Unfortunately, the CME's offering of Bitcoin Futures would prove to be (in a sense) Wall Streets' big exit. In reality, it was much closer to a 'sell the news' type of event, that would provide a good enough excuse for all the non-believers in Technical Analysis to explain the move 'post-facto.' However, as much as I embrace the validity of what it is we all do here (some good and some, well, not so good), there was a very real economics angle to the sell-off that followed the CME listing and, more importantly, eventual capitulation below what was believed to be (at the time, and in truth ultimately was (just not for traders)), strong support for the price at $6xxx.
So you see, Wall Street or not, this was the first time Bitcoin had ever seen such significant profit-taking, at anywhere close to the magnitude of sheer total $ volume (before the run up it was an incredibly tiny, illiquid market). As someone who lives and breathes markets, let me say that such a process, especially now that it is in the rearview mirror, was a very, very good thing for the 'maturity' of the Bitcoin market. Not only did this present the investing public with a real time market stress-test of sorts (really a test-test, ehr, not a drill) with regard to the type of Volume that could be absorbed by the now 'Gox-less' market, but it also allowed for the true demand that had been sitting idley by (as the market doubled, and then doubled again, etc amidst the run up) to begin to accumulate not just once, but twice in the later Covid-19 'flash crash.'
It is with the same knowlege-base that I can (also) tell you that what we saw as far as 'getting out' goes, over the last couple of years, can not be mentioned in the same conversation. In Segment 4, we saw an epic profit-taking event that was, in all honesty, a smart one regardless of how high the price goes going forward, and believe me: its' going to go high, very very high. Millions high. Ten(s) of Millions high. The 2018 seller(s) were selling coins bought at a cost basis in the low hundreds of dollars price, if not lower (no I have not seen their accounting records, nor do I know who they were, I just know markets). And it is not as if you come by that sort of coin, and leave yourself with none.
When you realize that if not right, I am at least pretty damn close to right, and combine that with the unique economics that apply to the first ever digitally-scarce asset, it might just start to click that ever since Segment 4 (*and especially now*), pretty much everyone of material significance coin-wise, that might have wanted to sell (in a big way at prices anywhereee close to these) has.already.sold. On the other side of the coin, so to speak (pun complied with), there are many who wish to have a materially significant amount of coins (relative to the first group) who for the most part have not even begun.
But I digress. Segment 4 was riddled with tons of drama that spilt over from the climactic resolution of the 'Fork Wars.' Bitcoin escaped the panic, confusion, and uncertainty of it all in a rather exciting way, but how it would all settle out in the longer term remained to be seen. Or at least that was the party-line, as the power brokers of old scurried about in the shadows, scrambling to concoct the next great Bitcoin Antithesis: CBDCs (and family of frankensteined, semi-private, propietary 'blockchains' (in theory (not code lol)). Central Banker-Punks theorize code as the saying would have it, and that they would, but with a twist. Enter Libra.
With the demand that had sat idlely by all throughout the 2017 run up having gladly absorbed the first 2018 'leg down' in prices (hint), only to want more, much more, and starting to get antsy about it (afterall, even now, you can only really buy so much coin at once without some 'marker maker' snapping at you that they are all sold out (wait...what? that's not how it works...is it? You mean to tell me those aren't actually people on the other side my trade? ehr well, kinda sorta, ehr, indirectly, and u know its' in your benefit trust us and all)) the price gradually (and then suddenly) began to creep up.
And you know what happens when the price starts to go up...excuses need to be 'found' for such blasphemy. Where was I again? Oh, right, Libra. So you see, Libra was the 'cause' (apparently) of Bitcoins' rise, despite the fact it has quite literally, absolutely nothing to do with it, if you hop back in the delorian you will find this brilliant narrative. Nevermind that these sort of 'leaks' (ultimately leading to articles ultimately leading to hearings) happen to have come mid-way through the rise, heck, it was the best they could do. Libra, if we should be so lucky to have this frankenstein, would 'legitimise' Bitcoin, ehr, or something like that (don't ask me I didn't put it together).
In the essence of time, in what will be yet another dense post, I will bring it all together with a brief summary of the rest of the Segment: After rising from $3xxx to over $14,xxx, Bitcoin (unsurprisingly (yes got that one too)) took a breather, and eventually began to pull back. But there was a problem: after a nice 50% correction...that pesky demand I keep talking about wanted more! With the price starting to creep back up, again, no more coins for sale, and esoteric problems popping up in the plumbing of the banking system often referred to as the Repo market (surely unrelated *wink*) 'something had to be done.' And with that, I leave you.
...think hard.
The following Chart Snapshots present my Count for Segment 4. Beginning with the heading:
"WHAT MAKES A TRIANGLE LIMITING OR NON-LIMITING? (including new Language, Terms, and Concepts that help fill in the gaps and more)"
I have included and applied what is a new focus of study I have been developing, here as it applies to Contracting Triangles, and more specifically with regard to the Thrust. I should also add that, even under the first heading:
"WHAT MAKES A TRIANGLE LIMITING OR NON-LIMITING? (Summary and Application of known concepts)"
There is a bit of new language and terms, yet here, in relation to known (yet fairly esoteric) concepts that have long needed to be clarified. My goal in all of this is, in addition to removing lots of unneccessary confusion, is two-fold: To help provoke and answer the question of just why exactly most of these 'rules' exist in the first place, and, to build upon the foundations of what Neely and others have provided by using (and eXtending) essentially the same Logic.
It's all in the charts...enjoy.
SEGMENT 4 CLASSIFICATION
Contracting Triangle:
Horizontal, Contracting Triangle:
WHAT MAKES A TRIANGLE LIMITING OR NON-LIMITING? (Summary and Application of known concepts)
Contracting Triangle, Limiting vs Non-Limiting:
Note: Be careful with the phrase "using the width of the triangle" in Approach A (Congestion Oriented). While the the statement is broadly correct, from a mathematics perspective, a better way to phrase it would be: 'based upon the Apex Time Zone excluding Wave E.' In other words: based upon the *relavent width of the triangle (from the end of Wave D to the Apex).
Construction (Approach A): Non-Limiting
Construction (Approach B): Limiting
WHAT MAKES A TRIANGLE LIMITING OR NON-LIMITING? (including new Language, Terms, and Concepts that help fill in the gaps and more)
Contracting Triangle Thrust: Limiting vs Non-Limiting:
Defining and Refining The Thrust
The Timeliness of a sub-thrust, Apex Price Climax, and Settlement
Thrust Classification: Limiting and Non-Limiting Thrust Types (General)
Thrust Classification: Limiting and Non-Limiting Thrust Types (Emulation Pt.1)
Thrust Classification: Limiting and Non-Limiting Thrust Types (Emulation Pt.2)
Thrust Classification: Process of Post Constructive Logic
Post Constructive Logic: The Segment 4 Horizontal, Contracting Triangle Thrust
Stage a. extent of thrust: Non-Limiting
Stage b. thrust behavior
*The symbol ~ should be taken to mean 'around.'
**As always, in accordance with proper measurement as it applies to the Elliot Wave Principle, all numerical value will be presented as integers (whole numbers).
Dealing With Elephant In The Room
The elephant in the room is that a triangle can be Categorized as both *Limiting and Non Limiting*, in Construction, and more broadly, in any context. Whether or not you agree, as shown earlier (in the context of Construction): Such an allowance is embedded in the Logic. Being forced to concede that a triangle can indeed exist within both Categories, will likely be a hard pill to swallow for any who would argue that a triangle MUST belong to *only one* of the two Categories (Limiting vs Non Limiting). If you would consider yourself among those supporting such a binarily-oriented premise, you might just want to reasses where it is coming from.
Perhaps there is something deeper going on: this allowance (logic-wise) was actually there for a reason. Similarly, more important than questioning whether a triangle is Limiting or not, is why it even matters. To argue that a triangle must unequivocaly be one or the other, yet fail to answer such a basic question, reveals just how silly this, and all other (Elliot Wave-related) orthodoxical rigidities, are. Conversely, it is easy to state why such a premise *does not matter*, and all it requires is an understanding of the purpose of these contemplations in the first place.
There seems to be a general consensus that the triangle itself must be Categorized as Limiting or Non Limiting, but not both, and its' (subsequent) Thrust plays but a small part in the validation or invalidation thereof. In other words, a belief that the triangle is what's important, as opposed to the Thrust. Yet, there is an easily discernable logic that provides the rationale needed to justify a reversal of the above equation, which again, speaks to purpose. I am here to tell you that not only can a triangle indeed be Categorized as *both, but more importantly, the entire equation is backwards: The *triangles' status as Limiting or Non Limiting is, in reality, hardly even important, it is only as important as its' contribution towards predicting and evaluating the Thrust. A seemingly obvious statement lost on those who support a strict, boolean Categorizating of the *triangle itself as either Limiting or Non Limiting, a process which entails performing lengthy, time-consuming approaches in order to reach such a determination. The Thrust of a triangle is not limited by which side of the rules its' Construction happens to narrowly fall on (using either approach), thus: To greatly overestimate the significance of such an outcome--is to confuse what should be the goal (predicting the Thrust)--with the means to achieving it (rigidly quantifying the extent of congestion 'into' the Apex of a triangle).
To further clarify the above, not only are those engaged in the means failing to acknowledge the true dynamic at play with regard to the relative importance of triangle and Thrust, and in turn, the goal of these means, but, similarly, they are failing to appreciate just how ineffective the means even are in achieving the goal. So, just what exactly is there to back up my claims? Well, in order to deduce the purpose of these approaches (for the sake of brevity I will refer to them indistinctly), it should go without saying that dissecting just what it is they are actually doing, will help reveal their purpose. Keep in mind, I am addressing their true nature, as opposed to what others may or may not be conscious of.
Using either approach to analyzing a triangles' Construction (within the context of the elephant in the room (there are two aproaches which are covered in depth under the heading:
"WHAT MAKES A TRIANGLE LIMITING OR NON-LIMITING? (Summary and Application of known concepts)"
in the first snapshot, and farther picked apart in my applying them to the Segment 4 Bitcoin Contracting Triangle)), there is a Direct determination as to a Limiting vs Non Limiting status by, in either case, performing a mathematical calculation. Common to both of these calculations is the termination of Wave E, as well as, the triangles' Apex. So, given this commonality, it is only be logical to ask: Why are these points used? What is it that is so special about them in particular? The answer is that they each provide a vital point in Time, one (the termination of Wave E) representing the initiation of a Departure from the triangle, and one representing another, later, point in time that will be of significance in evaluating all post-departure Price Action. In other words, the entire purpose of the determination is actually to gleem some type of anticipatory information about the triangles' *Thrust! Even the language used for the labels "Limiting" and "Non Limiting" is, indisputably, focused on the Thrust (as opposed to the triangle itself). Having internalised all of this, the question of which Category the *triangle belongs to, quite clearly, becomes an irrelevant one!
Some would argue, from the perspective of Position, there is still a bit of relevance in asking the above question, yet, they too are wrong: The stigma this perspective places upon a triangle is actually *detrimental. To define a triangle as Limiting based upon its' Position as a Wave 4 or B, or to Preconstructively state that a Wave 4 or B can only manifest as a Limiting triangle, is, in either case, a ridiculous notion. For instance, an eXtended Wave 5, or an Elongated Wave C (as in Wave C of an Elongated Flat/Elongated Zig Zag), each can shatter the Price limitations associated with Limiting triangles, and conversely, in rare cases, the Thrust of a triangle that is (will be, or would be,) found in any other Position *can conform with these same limitations. Not only does the above demonstrate why the binarily-oriented Categorization of a triangle as Limiting vs Non Limiting is a waste of time, it even positively argues that a *triangle can exist within both categories! And in fact, in such circumstances whereby a triangle exists within both Categories: What is generally perceived to be a contradiction, or more importantly, an error in analysis, is precisely the correct analysis. Thus, the again, binarily-oriented Categorization of a triangle as Limiting vs Non Limiting, and the calculations that are part in parcel to it, are not only a waste of time, but they are actually detrimental in that they misconstrue the truth about how Position relates to the results of these useless calculations, done in the name of attributing a status to the triangle itself.
All you really need to know *about the triangle itself*, with regard to the Thrust, is that its' Apex, the 'width' of its' biggest leg (Price-wise), and the 'Timeliness' of Departure from the triangle, provide important data points to be used in actively predicting and evaluating the Thrust. The entire rigamaral of performing these two different approaches to determining a triangles' status as Limiting or Non Limiting is, can simply be replaced with the following statement: The more congested the Price Action is into the Apex, the less room there is for a Thrust to occur.
Now, all of that is not to say the Construction of a triangle itself is entirely irrelevant, it is, indeed, fairly important for two reasons. The first reason the triangles' Construction is important is because it contributes to the PRIMARY differentiating factor regarding its' Classification: 'How the triangle Channels.' For a more thorough explanation of this concept see here:
The second reason the triangles' Construction is important, is because it Geometrically dictates the myriad of ways in which its' Apex can occur, which, in addition to the 'Timeliness' of Departure from the triangle, and the 'width' of its' biggest leg (Price-wise), help predict and evaluate the *Thrust. For more on this review the snapshots following the heading:
"WHAT MAKES A TRIANGLE LIMITING OR NON-LIMITING? (including new Language, Terms, and Concepts that help fill in the gaps and more)"
Stay tuned for Parts 5 and 6 of the series "The Life of Bitcoin: The definitive Historical Count," with each new part we have incrementally approached the current Price Action. To conclude the series I will be rehashing much of what preceded the series which revolves around a more 'all encompassing' perspective of this Count.
