Predicting Bitcoin's Cycle Using the Elliott Wave Theory, Part 2
Hello traders. In this article, we dive deeper into another detailed way of seeing Bitcoin's potential end-of-cycle pattern. This is the 2nd part to the previous post that discusses Bitcoin's cycle using the Elliott Wave Theory - a comprehensive and subjective theory. Here, we will be exploring an alternative scenario that builds on our previous concept of Bitcoin fractals since its inception in 2009. By addressing some of the subjectivity in the wave theory and leveraging market psychology and algorithmic fractals, this post is aimed to provide another organized and insightful look at the structure of Bitcoin's price movements.
If you are interested in seeing the first scenario, here is a link for your convenience:
For this alternative scenario, as mentioned above, it addresses some of the subjectivity that arises from the Elliott Wave Theory, specifically the observation of multiple 1-2 scenarios presented in our previous idea. Although the idea was supported by evidence from market psychology and algorithmic fractals, the problem arises by having the possibility of infinite 1-2 nested structures that works upon extending each internal wave - which is a pretty rare observation in any markets; however, Bitcoin has been able to withstand year by year and work on a pretty timely schedule. Based on the expectations, we used that observation to create the scenario of nested 1-2's. Nevertheless, due to its possible subjective count, this idea focuses more on the structural integrity of the basic 5-wave pattern and being able to fit the whole price action from inception as a 5-wave pattern.
Simply put, this thesis aims to create a more organized structure. As many are still eager to determine how far Bitcoin might correct after this bull run ends, I hope this idea can also give you confidence to help build your own thesis.
There is one thing that is for sure, however: the evidence portrayed from both of these scenarios strongly suggests that we will see higher levels before lower levels, though no theory can be 100% accurate, we could technically see a reversal even now. But my duty is to make sure to narrow down the scenarios as best as I can.
For this specific idea, we have structured this whole move up as 5 waves since inception, sticking as closely as possible to the basic Elliott Wave model of the 5-wave impulse. To achieve this, we made some simple adjustments from the first thesis in the previous post. The challenge for many arises when trying to fit a wave 3 that must be the longest or second longest wave compared to waves 1 and 5. In this chart, since primary wave 1 in yellow is the longest, wave 5 must be technically shorter than wave 3, which is a strict rule and must be obeyed.
To accomplish this, we can use the 2017-2020 price action as a range initself for wave 4. Previously, we considered the pandemic crash as a technical bottom. If we use that as a sideways range, the only viable sideways patterns are triangles and flats (as we have exhausted the zigzag family correction patterns for wave 4 already). For more details on these patterns, please refer to the previous guide on triangle and flat patterns in my Elliott Wave Theory guide on my main page.
By using the 2017-2020 range as a triangle, our subwave E has resulted in an extremely short subwave, known as a failure or truncation. After breaking out of the triangle, the next step is to figure out on how to form wave 5, which is the final part of the 5-wave motive impulse.
Currently, the only way we can see wave 5 concluding is through a possible diagonal given the current data. Why? We would typically expect a basic 5-wave move for wave 5, but since wave 5 has to be short and wave 1 was extended, we do not expect the last primary wave 5 in yellow to be extended.
Thus, the only remaining option is a possible diagonal pattern to complete wave 5, since we have also assumed it will be short due to wave 1 already being the longest wave and wave 3 being the 2nd longest wave. This Ending Diagonal, which consists of 5 waves (unlike a Leading Diagonal, which appears in waves 1 or A), they are only observed in wave 5s or wave Cs.
To construct our Ending Diagonal, the five subwaves must be zigzags (simple ABCs) or complex zigzags (WXYs). We are currently observing a mix of these, which is normal in diagonals:
* Subwave (1): ABC. Observed as a long wave A and short wave C. This can be debated, but longer wave As compared to wave Cs are not uncommon.
* Subwave (2): WXY. A WXYXZ could fit as well like we observed in our previous post, but that deviates significantly from the traditional structure. A WXY is the next best alternative, and even that can be subjective as we typically observe simple ZigZags (ABCs) within diagonals.
* Subwave (3): Currently being created. With the available data, it could be an ABC, though it may become more complex going forward.
* Subwave (4) / (5): To be determined. Must belong to the zigzag family.
As we are still working on subwave (3) within the ending diagonal, the interest level for a pullback remains the same as in our previous idea, THAT IS THE KEY. This significant pullback could validate this idea, so we will monitor it up to that point.
This larger picture presents a wide range between subwaves 4 and 5, similar to waves 1 and 2.
Once subwaves 4 and 5 are created, it will technically terminate the larger degree wave 5 of the entire 5-wave impulse cycle. After termination, a significant downside correction is possible, potentially reaching levels as low as $3,000.
Alternatively, we also have a completely different count where this cycle wave 1-2 may be already in play, and it can be achieved by using a larger flat idea that may also help with separation and further deepend subjectivity. Here is that approach:
In conclusion, while the evidence strongly suggests that Bitcoin will reach higher levels before any significant correction, it is crucial to remain adaptable as market conditions evolve. The analysis presented here offers merely a potential roadmap. No theory can predict market movements with absolute certainty. By staying informed and considering multiple scenarios, investors can better navigate the complexities of the cryptocurrency market.
I invite EVERYONE to share your thoughts and engage with this post in the comments below.
For this alternative scenario, as mentioned above, it addresses some of the subjectivity that arises from the Elliott Wave Theory, specifically the observation of multiple 1-2 scenarios presented in our previous idea. Although the idea was supported by evidence from market psychology and algorithmic fractals, the problem arises by having the possibility of infinite 1-2 nested structures that works upon extending each internal wave - which is a pretty rare observation in any markets; however, Bitcoin has been able to withstand year by year and work on a pretty timely schedule. Based on the expectations, we used that observation to create the scenario of nested 1-2's. Nevertheless, due to its possible subjective count, this idea focuses more on the structural integrity of the basic 5-wave pattern and being able to fit the whole price action from inception as a 5-wave pattern.
Simply put, this thesis aims to create a more organized structure. As many are still eager to determine how far Bitcoin might correct after this bull run ends, I hope this idea can also give you confidence to help build your own thesis.
There is one thing that is for sure, however: the evidence portrayed from both of these scenarios strongly suggests that we will see higher levels before lower levels, though no theory can be 100% accurate, we could technically see a reversal even now. But my duty is to make sure to narrow down the scenarios as best as I can.
For this specific idea, we have structured this whole move up as 5 waves since inception, sticking as closely as possible to the basic Elliott Wave model of the 5-wave impulse. To achieve this, we made some simple adjustments from the first thesis in the previous post. The challenge for many arises when trying to fit a wave 3 that must be the longest or second longest wave compared to waves 1 and 5. In this chart, since primary wave 1 in yellow is the longest, wave 5 must be technically shorter than wave 3, which is a strict rule and must be obeyed.
To accomplish this, we can use the 2017-2020 price action as a range initself for wave 4. Previously, we considered the pandemic crash as a technical bottom. If we use that as a sideways range, the only viable sideways patterns are triangles and flats (as we have exhausted the zigzag family correction patterns for wave 4 already). For more details on these patterns, please refer to the previous guide on triangle and flat patterns in my Elliott Wave Theory guide on my main page.
By using the 2017-2020 range as a triangle, our subwave E has resulted in an extremely short subwave, known as a failure or truncation. After breaking out of the triangle, the next step is to figure out on how to form wave 5, which is the final part of the 5-wave motive impulse.
Currently, the only way we can see wave 5 concluding is through a possible diagonal given the current data. Why? We would typically expect a basic 5-wave move for wave 5, but since wave 5 has to be short and wave 1 was extended, we do not expect the last primary wave 5 in yellow to be extended.
Thus, the only remaining option is a possible diagonal pattern to complete wave 5, since we have also assumed it will be short due to wave 1 already being the longest wave and wave 3 being the 2nd longest wave. This Ending Diagonal, which consists of 5 waves (unlike a Leading Diagonal, which appears in waves 1 or A), they are only observed in wave 5s or wave Cs.
To construct our Ending Diagonal, the five subwaves must be zigzags (simple ABCs) or complex zigzags (WXYs). We are currently observing a mix of these, which is normal in diagonals:
* Subwave (1): ABC. Observed as a long wave A and short wave C. This can be debated, but longer wave As compared to wave Cs are not uncommon.
* Subwave (2): WXY. A WXYXZ could fit as well like we observed in our previous post, but that deviates significantly from the traditional structure. A WXY is the next best alternative, and even that can be subjective as we typically observe simple ZigZags (ABCs) within diagonals.
* Subwave (3): Currently being created. With the available data, it could be an ABC, though it may become more complex going forward.
* Subwave (4) / (5): To be determined. Must belong to the zigzag family.
As we are still working on subwave (3) within the ending diagonal, the interest level for a pullback remains the same as in our previous idea, THAT IS THE KEY. This significant pullback could validate this idea, so we will monitor it up to that point.
This larger picture presents a wide range between subwaves 4 and 5, similar to waves 1 and 2.
Once subwaves 4 and 5 are created, it will technically terminate the larger degree wave 5 of the entire 5-wave impulse cycle. After termination, a significant downside correction is possible, potentially reaching levels as low as $3,000.
Alternatively, we also have a completely different count where this cycle wave 1-2 may be already in play, and it can be achieved by using a larger flat idea that may also help with separation and further deepend subjectivity. Here is that approach:
In conclusion, while the evidence strongly suggests that Bitcoin will reach higher levels before any significant correction, it is crucial to remain adaptable as market conditions evolve. The analysis presented here offers merely a potential roadmap. No theory can predict market movements with absolute certainty. By staying informed and considering multiple scenarios, investors can better navigate the complexities of the cryptocurrency market.
I invite EVERYONE to share your thoughts and engage with this post in the comments below.
🌎 Telegram | t.me/xforceglobal
📢 Twitter | twitter.com/XForceGlobal
🎥 YouTube | youtube.com/c/XForceGlobal
📢 Twitter | twitter.com/XForceGlobal
🎥 YouTube | youtube.com/c/XForceGlobal
Related publications
Disclaimer
The information and publications are not meant to be, and do not constitute, financial, investment, trading, or other types of advice or recommendations supplied or endorsed by TradingView. Read more in the Terms of Use.