In this post I will continue to provide the definitive Historical Elliot Wave Count on Bitcoin by thoroughly picking apart each and every major Segment (basically a Trend or a 'move') from Cradle to Grave, or, ehr, now. This is part two of an epic series, for the relevant context and more background, see (and read) Part 1:
Again, the focus of this series is (for the most part) a *Direct perspective analyzing each of the Six major Segments in Price that, in summation, comprise the (relevant) historical price of Bitcoin to date.
In the last post, I tediously analysed the first (relevant) Segment in Bitcoins' history, which we now know is an Impulsive Wave 1, though as mentioned, such a Progress Label would have been premature *at the time*. The focus of this post will be on the second relevant Segment: The first prolonged Bear Market in Bitcoins' history.
To provide a brief flavor of the times: After what is now known as the greatest % increase 'bubble' in history, the (at the time) largest Bitcoin Exchange (really a Magic the Gathering Exchange revamped to sell Bit Cons) had just (officially(ish)) gone under, China had banned Bitcoin *for the first time*, and the Bitcoin 'Bear Whale' would soon earn their claim to fame. Bitcoin was basically a joke that a bunch of kids apparently had made a lot of money on, before it all came crashing down. If you had seen one ponzi scheme you had seen them all, this was no different. "If it ever gets big enough 'the Government' will just ban it." "Are you sure that's even Legal?" Back then, superceding BitcoinTalk and other nerdy venues, Reddit was the place to be to talk shop about this new Bitcoin thing, and how it would make us all rich. Outside of that, personally, I had one small blog I would frequent to get my Bitcoin 'News.' Wired had done a piece on Bitcoin about a year back, back then it was the talk of the town.
It was not fun to watch the price crash from the 2013 highs lower and lower, and ultimately capitulate to ~ $150 (you wont see this on the line chart), trust me. With every successive drop, a new 'Rainbow Chart' was created to instill hope amongst us r/BitcoinMarkets(ers?) Anyway, the Honey Badger didn't keh, and the true believers hedled strong and banded together for support over this new 'thing' Bitcoin, a drunk story emerged and a typo was memified. And no, it does not mean "Hold On for Dear Life."
As the years progressed, Bitcoin traded in a Range, with many break outs denied as tension, worry, anticipation, and excitement all continued to build. A descending trendline continually rejected the price like the Clown in Happy Gilmore spitting out golf balls. But if you listened closely enough you could hear it: rumors of this and that 'tech guy' were 'getting in.' Ya, Bitcoin was a joke in the US, but the 'next Cyprus' was imminent, and, as crazy as this sounds, I know its ridiculous, but many think Bitcoin could one day go as high as TEN THOUSAND $ PER COIN. No, seriously, it could.
Title for this Segment: "The Lost Count: The Double Flat You Never Heard About"
To date, Bitcoin just completed an over a decade long Wave 2 Correction. This correction is Classified as a Running Triple Three, the most Powerful Pattern in all of Elliot Wave as far as what it implies is to follow: Wave 3 should reach a Price of 10 Million $ per coin:
Snapshot
Published Chart
The Running Triple Three Correction is comprised of a series of three Standard Corrections Namely W, Y, and Z, which are connected by two 'Big' X waves. The relevance is in that, in hindsight, we can now state that Segment 2 is necessarily a Standard Correction in the Position of Wave W of a larger Wave 2 Running Triple Three.
To bring it all together and provide a glimpse of what this post will be demonstrating: The best Classification (Wave Type) of Segment 2 *as determined Directly* is/was a Non-Standard Correction, a 'Double Flat.' It's important to grasp the distinction between a Direct and Indirect perspective of a given Wave. So, you see, Waves are always but a part of a larger Wave Pattern. Looking at any given wave in the context of the larger pattern it exists within, provides a more 'all encompassing' perspective of what it 'is,' as opposed to looking at it 'under a microscope' so to speak. Additionally, as there is always a continuous stream of market data, new waves are always manifesting, whether we are conscious of them or not. Thus, to suppose an Elliot Wave Count, juan is inherently speaking to a snapshot in Time. As Time progresses, past and current analysis is continually validated or invalidated according to the Elliot Wave Principle.
In this series, we are looking at each Segment 'underneath a microscope' and speaking to its' 'Direct' Classification (Wave Type). The idea is to give a taste of how each Segment 'should' have been Counted *at the time of completion*. With that said, in reality, such a 'field of view' is extremely limiting as far as putting all of the pieces together to solve the larger puzzle. It is effectively a bottom-up approach that does help inform what the larger Wave Pattern is, yet totally ignores the fact that each and every piece effects all others, and there are new pieces continually being added, thus why a larger field of view is always needed, as well as a knowledge of how all the pieces fit together. So, in each part of the series (post) I will begin with the Direct perspective of the Segment in question, and then, by the end of each post, gradually bridge the gap to how it all plays into the larger picture (the InDirect perspective). At times, the Direct and InDirect Classification, or Categorization, of a Wave Pattern might disagree! Segment 2 is one of those times. Out of the Six Segments...it is the *only* Segment where this is true, which makes it the most interesting.
Let's begin. The first three Chart Snapshots explain the best Count from a Direct perspective, a 'Double Flat' Non-Standard Correction. The 'Not Wave A' bit is giving some of the rationale as to why the Classification of this Segment as a Double Flat *does not* make sense from and Indirect perspective. The rest of the Chart Snapshots mainly explain what the best Count is of this Segment from an InDirect perspective, a B Failure Flat with a Terminal C Wave. There are also two variations of this count, which would have temporally preceded it, analysis-wise. Finally, the last snapshot shows where each Count 'should' have been 'Post Constructively Evolved, arriving at final Count mentioned earlier.
'Double Flat' Count (Direct)
Double Flat (Not Wave A)
Double Flat (Wave Type)
Double Flat (Time)
'B Failure Flat' Counts (InDirect)
-Note, the existence of a Terminal Impulse in every one of these counts (albeit in different variations Positionally and Constructionally) effect the Classification of the larger Pattern: Typically, a Wave C of this size would Classify the Flat as an Elongated Flat, here the Terminal Impulse 'Over Extends' the Trend which is necessarily taken into consideration in how the Pattern is Classified.
'B Failure Flat' with a Terminal Wave C:
-Wave Type part 1
Note: Wave 3 (in Aqua) should be shown beneath the earlier Candle-stick Low (this earlier end is distinct from the later end denoted by i which represents 'where' the wave ends from the perspective of Time. Also, correction: The Duration of each wave is actually shown in the chart after next, not "earlier."
Wave Type part 2
B Failure Flat Construction, Sub-Waves.
-Time
-Time (Terminally Messy and Beaty Mid-Point Channeling)
Time (Post Constructive Logic)
'B Failure Flat' Terminal Impulse Variations:
Variation A
Variation B
'Where' the Count Changes (Post Constructively Evolves)
Note: The earlier use of the term 'Inverse Effectively' is now replaced with the term 'Post Constructively Evolved.' The reason being is that the former is a term I have mainly used to describe the supposition of a *Wave that ends in more than one place, each from different perspectives and usually for different purposes. The latter is, perhaps, a better way of describing the supposition of how a 'Primary' Count, Progress Label, Wave Type, or any combination thereof might change at multiple points in time, due to unfolding Price Action, in retrospect. 'Primary Count' should be taken to mean the #1 Count, which may or may not be the only Count.
Bare in mind, it is important to understand how Post Constructive Evolution differs from the following three concepts: A. an incorrect application of the Elliot Wave Principle, B. a Count being invalidated, and/or C. part of a Count needing to be adjusted. Regarding how this concept differs from A, Post Constructive Evolution (PCE), by definition, only applies to a scenario whereby a Count is *correct (at the time of analysis), yet neccessarily must be evolved due to some aspect of future, *Indirect Price Action. In other words, and to restate the terms it covers, PCE presupposes that the correct, 'Primary' Count, Progress Label, Wave Type, or any combination thereof, can evolve over time depending upon when the analysis done.
In the case of B and C, presumably, the Elliot Wave Principle (EWP) has been correctly applied. Yet, due to subsequent Price Action, each of the two concepts are impacted: In B, an Alternative Count becomes the new, most likely Count or the 'only' Count. In C, a small part of the Count is adjusted i.e a Standard Wave 5 that fails to break the 2-4 Line within the time it took to form is updated to a Terminal Wave 5.
Post Constructive Evolution differs from both B and C in that the change MUST always be applied *Indirectly, in Retrospect. Additionally, it is only relevant within the context of a Primary Count, and/or a given part of it.
Addendum
To be clear: The 'Post Constructive' in 'Post Constructive Evolution' should not be taken to mean 'the move to follow' (or as within the context of stages of Post Constructive Logic of a Pattern), but rather, it should be taken as (more broadly) 'after the fact.' A more accurate but less catchy label would be Indirect, Retrospective Evolution.
Again, the focus of this series is (for the most part) a *Direct perspective analyzing each of the Six major Segments in Price that, in summation, comprise the (relevant) historical price of Bitcoin to date.
In the last post, I tediously analysed the first (relevant) Segment in Bitcoins' history, which we now know is an Impulsive Wave 1, though as mentioned, such a Progress Label would have been premature *at the time*. The focus of this post will be on the second relevant Segment: The first prolonged Bear Market in Bitcoins' history.
To provide a brief flavor of the times: After what is now known as the greatest % increase 'bubble' in history, the (at the time) largest Bitcoin Exchange (really a Magic the Gathering Exchange revamped to sell Bit Cons) had just (officially(ish)) gone under, China had banned Bitcoin *for the first time*, and the Bitcoin 'Bear Whale' would soon earn their claim to fame. Bitcoin was basically a joke that a bunch of kids apparently had made a lot of money on, before it all came crashing down. If you had seen one ponzi scheme you had seen them all, this was no different. "If it ever gets big enough 'the Government' will just ban it." "Are you sure that's even Legal?" Back then, superceding BitcoinTalk and other nerdy venues, Reddit was the place to be to talk shop about this new Bitcoin thing, and how it would make us all rich. Outside of that, personally, I had one small blog I would frequent to get my Bitcoin 'News.' Wired had done a piece on Bitcoin about a year back, back then it was the talk of the town.
It was not fun to watch the price crash from the 2013 highs lower and lower, and ultimately capitulate to ~ $150 (you wont see this on the line chart), trust me. With every successive drop, a new 'Rainbow Chart' was created to instill hope amongst us r/BitcoinMarkets(ers?) Anyway, the Honey Badger didn't keh, and the true believers hedled strong and banded together for support over this new 'thing' Bitcoin, a drunk story emerged and a typo was memified. And no, it does not mean "Hold On for Dear Life."
As the years progressed, Bitcoin traded in a Range, with many break outs denied as tension, worry, anticipation, and excitement all continued to build. A descending trendline continually rejected the price like the Clown in Happy Gilmore spitting out golf balls. But if you listened closely enough you could hear it: rumors of this and that 'tech guy' were 'getting in.' Ya, Bitcoin was a joke in the US, but the 'next Cyprus' was imminent, and, as crazy as this sounds, I know its ridiculous, but many think Bitcoin could one day go as high as TEN THOUSAND $ PER COIN. No, seriously, it could.
Title for this Segment: "The Lost Count: The Double Flat You Never Heard About"
To date, Bitcoin just completed an over a decade long Wave 2 Correction. This correction is Classified as a Running Triple Three, the most Powerful Pattern in all of Elliot Wave as far as what it implies is to follow: Wave 3 should reach a Price of 10 Million $ per coin:
Snapshot
The Running Triple Three Correction is comprised of a series of three Standard Corrections Namely W, Y, and Z, which are connected by two 'Big' X waves. The relevance is in that, in hindsight, we can now state that Segment 2 is necessarily a Standard Correction in the Position of Wave W of a larger Wave 2 Running Triple Three.
To bring it all together and provide a glimpse of what this post will be demonstrating: The best Classification (Wave Type) of Segment 2 *as determined Directly* is/was a Non-Standard Correction, a 'Double Flat.' It's important to grasp the distinction between a Direct and Indirect perspective of a given Wave. So, you see, Waves are always but a part of a larger Wave Pattern. Looking at any given wave in the context of the larger pattern it exists within, provides a more 'all encompassing' perspective of what it 'is,' as opposed to looking at it 'under a microscope' so to speak. Additionally, as there is always a continuous stream of market data, new waves are always manifesting, whether we are conscious of them or not. Thus, to suppose an Elliot Wave Count, juan is inherently speaking to a snapshot in Time. As Time progresses, past and current analysis is continually validated or invalidated according to the Elliot Wave Principle.
In this series, we are looking at each Segment 'underneath a microscope' and speaking to its' 'Direct' Classification (Wave Type). The idea is to give a taste of how each Segment 'should' have been Counted *at the time of completion*. With that said, in reality, such a 'field of view' is extremely limiting as far as putting all of the pieces together to solve the larger puzzle. It is effectively a bottom-up approach that does help inform what the larger Wave Pattern is, yet totally ignores the fact that each and every piece effects all others, and there are new pieces continually being added, thus why a larger field of view is always needed, as well as a knowledge of how all the pieces fit together. So, in each part of the series (post) I will begin with the Direct perspective of the Segment in question, and then, by the end of each post, gradually bridge the gap to how it all plays into the larger picture (the InDirect perspective). At times, the Direct and InDirect Classification, or Categorization, of a Wave Pattern might disagree! Segment 2 is one of those times. Out of the Six Segments...it is the *only* Segment where this is true, which makes it the most interesting.
Let's begin. The first three Chart Snapshots explain the best Count from a Direct perspective, a 'Double Flat' Non-Standard Correction. The 'Not Wave A' bit is giving some of the rationale as to why the Classification of this Segment as a Double Flat *does not* make sense from and Indirect perspective. The rest of the Chart Snapshots mainly explain what the best Count is of this Segment from an InDirect perspective, a B Failure Flat with a Terminal C Wave. There are also two variations of this count, which would have temporally preceded it, analysis-wise. Finally, the last snapshot shows where each Count 'should' have been 'Post Constructively Evolved, arriving at final Count mentioned earlier.
'Double Flat' Count (Direct)
'B Failure Flat' Counts (InDirect)
-Note, the existence of a Terminal Impulse in every one of these counts (albeit in different variations Positionally and Constructionally) effect the Classification of the larger Pattern: Typically, a Wave C of this size would Classify the Flat as an Elongated Flat, here the Terminal Impulse 'Over Extends' the Trend which is necessarily taken into consideration in how the Pattern is Classified.
'B Failure Flat' with a Terminal Wave C:
Note: Wave 3 (in Aqua) should be shown beneath the earlier Candle-stick Low (this earlier end is distinct from the later end denoted by i which represents 'where' the wave ends from the perspective of Time. Also, correction: The Duration of each wave is actually shown in the chart after next, not "earlier."
B Failure Flat Construction, Sub-Waves.
'B Failure Flat' Terminal Impulse Variations:
Note: The earlier use of the term 'Inverse Effectively' is now replaced with the term 'Post Constructively Evolved.' The reason being is that the former is a term I have mainly used to describe the supposition of a *Wave that ends in more than one place, each from different perspectives and usually for different purposes. The latter is, perhaps, a better way of describing the supposition of how a 'Primary' Count, Progress Label, Wave Type, or any combination thereof might change at multiple points in time, due to unfolding Price Action, in retrospect. 'Primary Count' should be taken to mean the #1 Count, which may or may not be the only Count.
Bare in mind, it is important to understand how Post Constructive Evolution differs from the following three concepts: A. an incorrect application of the Elliot Wave Principle, B. a Count being invalidated, and/or C. part of a Count needing to be adjusted. Regarding how this concept differs from A, Post Constructive Evolution (PCE), by definition, only applies to a scenario whereby a Count is *correct (at the time of analysis), yet neccessarily must be evolved due to some aspect of future, *Indirect Price Action. In other words, and to restate the terms it covers, PCE presupposes that the correct, 'Primary' Count, Progress Label, Wave Type, or any combination thereof, can evolve over time depending upon when the analysis done.
In the case of B and C, presumably, the Elliot Wave Principle (EWP) has been correctly applied. Yet, due to subsequent Price Action, each of the two concepts are impacted: In B, an Alternative Count becomes the new, most likely Count or the 'only' Count. In C, a small part of the Count is adjusted i.e a Standard Wave 5 that fails to break the 2-4 Line within the time it took to form is updated to a Terminal Wave 5.
Post Constructive Evolution differs from both B and C in that the change MUST always be applied *Indirectly, in Retrospect. Additionally, it is only relevant within the context of a Primary Count, and/or a given part of it.
Addendum
To be clear: The 'Post Constructive' in 'Post Constructive Evolution' should not be taken to mean 'the move to follow' (or as within the context of stages of Post Constructive Logic of a Pattern), but rather, it should be taken as (more broadly) 'after the fact.' A more accurate but less catchy label would be Indirect, Retrospective Evolution.
