A lot of recent talk has turned around on a massive resistance thought to be just ahead for BTC. Bullish sentiment sees this resistance level as eminently surmountable, yet, as altcoins slump and quiver in BTC's dominance, hovering somewhere near 56 per cent of the market, what the market may signal is the desire for a short term correction. Saying this, however, may be overstating the intrinsic value of tokens on the exchange. We're certainly seeing a plethora of IEO plays in recent times: the Binance release of its distributed exchange and its embrace of Atomic COSMOS; BITFINEX announcement of the May 11 close of its private sale of LEO and related security token, aiming to raidse 11B in USDT-backed coin. DGTX is another, albiet delayed, offering, one expected to fly sometime this summer, though it is already available, just not on the exchange whose attraction and activity it will represent.
The case for coins linked to revenue generating trading activity, and the decoupling of these coins from all tokens being traded distinguishes them from altcoins; the influence over exchange tokens by BTC alone, despite its market cap dominance, will be relatively light. What we may see is both an erosion of the altcoins and the elevation of the exchange tokens. The reason might be the idea exchange revenues impart an intrinsic value. But there's something wrong with that picture, in the context of IOTA's difficulties retaining value and the apparent need for correction of BTC for the altcoins to realize BTC value gains: people don't invest long term. The retail trade which forms the backbone of the market seems to pull out energetically from a coin being traded and at greater heft than might be seen with FOREX trading pairs.
As a consequence of these factors, it looks like long term investing does not touch any other coin but Bitcoin in any supporting sense. Still, this is a bit of an assumption, and may not bear scrutiny well enough to hold so as to support the implied argument, by extension, that the intrinsic value of Ethereum (ETH) as a contract enabler (though at least one Bitcoin variant makes this possible, too) is not enough. The market may require packaged funds as a bridge to more diverse offerings which are also better supported by institutions, while also becoming more connected to fiat through select coins listing there (which has been and is happening). Time will tell if leaner trader pricing for distributed exchanges starting only with cryptocurrency will attract asset classes to list for the global retail crowd, but it seems the prudent move by the mature financial elite will be to keep the house lights on and try to tame their invited guests, even if fractional reserve backing gives the trading floor more the air it dislikes about Bitcoin than it does what it likes about Gold.
Because the movement of Bitcoin is neatly telegraphed to most of the big altcoins, almost one-for-one in many cased, though with some reversals likely depending on halvings, or various MA interval crossings and other such cycles, the diagram here presents a scenario in which DOGE/BTC and BTC are contained along the timeline. The proposed floor here is $4600, a value taken from the market spike April 1-3, one intended to be reflective of the value retained as much as by the tier's role as support now having been then a potential bearpin. All things being equal, DOGE, like its altcoin cousins, will likely spike when it has both had the chance to accumulate after a fall, and when Bitcoin takes a corrective turn.
May 15-18 seems like a good breakout, but because the channel here is seen as diverging, unless the pressure by Bulls is let go, there may be no resistance to Bitcoin's rise, as all the trading volume gets sucked up into its vortex and the altcoins and tokens with intrinsic value get shut out. If there is context here for Binance's decision to restrict withdrawals and deposits for a week following its reputed
40M plus hack, then maybe the DOGE game is being told to play itself. Is that as doubtful as it sounds?
The case for coins linked to revenue generating trading activity, and the decoupling of these coins from all tokens being traded distinguishes them from altcoins; the influence over exchange tokens by BTC alone, despite its market cap dominance, will be relatively light. What we may see is both an erosion of the altcoins and the elevation of the exchange tokens. The reason might be the idea exchange revenues impart an intrinsic value. But there's something wrong with that picture, in the context of IOTA's difficulties retaining value and the apparent need for correction of BTC for the altcoins to realize BTC value gains: people don't invest long term. The retail trade which forms the backbone of the market seems to pull out energetically from a coin being traded and at greater heft than might be seen with FOREX trading pairs.
As a consequence of these factors, it looks like long term investing does not touch any other coin but Bitcoin in any supporting sense. Still, this is a bit of an assumption, and may not bear scrutiny well enough to hold so as to support the implied argument, by extension, that the intrinsic value of Ethereum (ETH) as a contract enabler (though at least one Bitcoin variant makes this possible, too) is not enough. The market may require packaged funds as a bridge to more diverse offerings which are also better supported by institutions, while also becoming more connected to fiat through select coins listing there (which has been and is happening). Time will tell if leaner trader pricing for distributed exchanges starting only with cryptocurrency will attract asset classes to list for the global retail crowd, but it seems the prudent move by the mature financial elite will be to keep the house lights on and try to tame their invited guests, even if fractional reserve backing gives the trading floor more the air it dislikes about Bitcoin than it does what it likes about Gold.
Because the movement of Bitcoin is neatly telegraphed to most of the big altcoins, almost one-for-one in many cased, though with some reversals likely depending on halvings, or various MA interval crossings and other such cycles, the diagram here presents a scenario in which DOGE/BTC and BTC are contained along the timeline. The proposed floor here is $4600, a value taken from the market spike April 1-3, one intended to be reflective of the value retained as much as by the tier's role as support now having been then a potential bearpin. All things being equal, DOGE, like its altcoin cousins, will likely spike when it has both had the chance to accumulate after a fall, and when Bitcoin takes a corrective turn.
May 15-18 seems like a good breakout, but because the channel here is seen as diverging, unless the pressure by Bulls is let go, there may be no resistance to Bitcoin's rise, as all the trading volume gets sucked up into its vortex and the altcoins and tokens with intrinsic value get shut out. If there is context here for Binance's decision to restrict withdrawals and deposits for a week following its reputed
40M plus hack, then maybe the DOGE game is being told to play itself. Is that as doubtful as it sounds?
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.
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.