LTCBTC Price Action Bullish DivergenceIt's about time you drop what you're doing and pay close attention to this beautiful construct. It's once in a lifetime opportunity and it's happening.
NFA
LTCBTC trade ideas
LTC / BTC Trade with clear invalidation and take profit levelsI am suggesting we are on the brink of a larger move upwards for the LTC/BTC pair over the next couple of weeks. If you take a look at the move beginning Friday June 10th 2022, you'll see that we viciously broke through this weak resistance level.
LTC/BTC Litecoin Bitcoin Chart Looks So BullishLitecoin is retesting the top of the channel/falling wedge that it broke out of about a year ago today. As long as LTC can stay above this then I think we are about to rocket up in the LTC/BTC and LTC/USD pairs. Litecoin is really about to catch fire and take off. Hold through the FUD and shlt talk about Litecoin. Litecoin is about to swallow everything above it on coinmarketcap including XRP! This is not financial advice this is just my opinion.
I did a LTC/USD chart analysis as well. I will link it below
LTCBTC (litecoin)hi dear trader
there are two take profit on this chart ... litecoin with btc pair
Litecoin might hit the $1000 price level by the end of 2025
Litecoin implemented a different algorithm that requires a lower hash rate for miners named Scrypt. As a result, Litecoin miners need less energy and effort to process transaction blocks, increasing the block times to about 2.5 minutes. For that reason, Litecoin is often called silver, where Bitcoin is gold.
What is the difference between a trader and a crypto holder?
Day trading is a short-term and high-risk strategy where crypto investors buy and sell cryptocurrencies on the same day to profit from rapid price swings. Hodling is crypto slang for buying and holding cryptocurrency to profit from its long-term value appreciation.
goodluck
LTC/BTC - Litecoin: Super Trend◳◱ On the $LTC/ CRYPTOCAP:BTC chart, the Super Trend pattern suggests a pause in volatility, potentially gearing up for a breakout. Traders might observe resistance around 0.002132 | 0.00227 | 0.002497 and support near 0.001905 | 0.001816 | 0.001589. Entering trades at 0.002031 could be strategic, aiming for the next resistance level.
◰◲ General info :
▣ Name: Litecoin
▣ Rank: 18
▣ Exchanges: Binance, Kucoin, Huobipro, Gateio, Mexc, Bittrex
▣ Category/Sector: Payments - Currencies
▣ Overview: Litecoin is a fork of Bitcoin's codebase with four times faster block times and a four times larger supply. The project considers itself complementary to Bitcoin as a silver to Bitcoin's gold. It is often used as a pseduo-testnet for Bitcoin, adopting new protocol changes before they are deployed on Bitcoin.
◰◲ Technical Metrics :
▣ Mrkt Price: 0.002031 ₿
▣ 24HVol: 110.878 ₿
▣ 24H Chng: 2.421%
▣ 7-Days Chng: 3.66%
▣ 1-Month Chng: 8.87%
▣ 3-Months Chng: -13.40%
◲◰ Pivot Points - Levels :
◥ Resistance: 0.002132 | 0.00227 | 0.002497
◢ Support: 0.001905 | 0.001816 | 0.001589
◱◳ Indicators recommendation :
▣ Oscillators: NEUTRAL
▣ Moving Averages: BUY
◰◲ Technical Indicators Summary : BUY
◲◰ Sharpe Ratios :
▣ Last 30D: 3.44
▣ Last 90D: -0.90
▣ Last 1-Y: 0.44
▣ Last 3-Y: 0.58
◲◰ Volatility :
▣ Last 30D: 0.36
▣ Last 90D: 0.49
▣ Last 1-Y: 0.74
▣ Last 3-Y: 0.97
◳◰ Market Sentiment Index :
▣ News sentiment score is N/A
▣ Twitter sentiment score is 0.52 - Bullish
▣ Reddit sentiment score is 0.57 - Bullish
▣ In-depth LTCBTC technical analysis on Tradingview TA page
▣ What do you think of this analysis? Share your insights and let's discuss in the comments below. Your like, follow and support would be greatly appreciated!
◲ Disclaimer
Please note that the information and publications provided are for informational purposes only and should not be construed as financial, investment, trading, or any other type of advice or recommendation. We encourage you to conduct your own research and consult with a qualified professional before making any financial decisions. The use of the information provided is solely at your own risk.
▣ Welcome to the home of charting big: TradingView
Benefit from a ton of financial analysis features, instruments and data. Have a look around, and if you do choose to go with an upgraded plan, you'll get up to $30.
Discover it here - affiliate link -
Entered a LTC/BTC LongI'm going to swing trade the current LTC/BTC position.
25% Profit expected
Longed 0.002
Target: 0.0025
Stop Loss: 0.00194
Litecoin post halvingI do believe in this project and it is valuable to Big Brother BITCOIN.
It has been a solid investment for me and I will always keep a bag. This is NOT investment advice.
If you look at the previous history of the pairing it is clear to see it is not the best investment. I believe we will see some changes with time and gains also.
Transactions are dropping from the near 600K at max Pre-halving, back down to 100+K.
I am with Charlie Lee in his understanding of what is coming.
Watch for inverted head and shoulders peeps!!!
Good luck with your days and hopefully you get to go fishing often as I do living in WYOMING!!
Litecoin: A Treaties on Triangle Strategy Pt. 2Part Two:
What kind of Triangle, Alternative Counts, and What comes next:
There are mainly two counter arguments against *what the Count is*. The first of which would likely be made by an Elliotician of a particular mindset. This counter argument would concede that the Ratio is indeed in a Triangle, but claim that either:
A. It is in an Expanding Triangle
B. It is in some kind of Triangle, but we can not know or speculate as to what Category or Type it is, and 'where' (at what Degree and with which group of Waves) it is happening
In certain circles, there is a feigned, technical precision as to *what a Count is and isn't*, as opposed to *what a Count actually means* or implies about the future. It is a classic misunderstanding of the purpose of counting waves in the first place. Over the next part of this post I will be explaining how the above applies.
The LTCBTC Ratio is not in an Expanding Triangle:
Any Expanding Triangle Categorization of the LTCBTC Ratio would, necessarily, imply a Position of Section M2. Moreover, in an Expanding Triangle, Wave A or Wave B must meet the criteria of being the smallest wave for the purpose of Channeling. Any Count that actually incorporates an understanding that, on the LTCBTC Ratio, the Triple Zig Zag (M3) would have to be the largest Wave of *any Triangle, would be forced to acknowlege that the M2 Leg must be Positioned as either Wave A or B.
Section M3 can not be in the position of Wave E: Given the size of the supposed prior four Legs (this would necessarily take into account the price history of the rally not shown on the Bitfinex chart (Section M0), and presume the coin 'started trading in a Wave B'), Sections M1 and M2 would represent two *consecutive Legs that fail to fully retrace the prior, this is not allowable in any type of Expanding Triangle, for the purpose of Channeling. To consider the unshown rally (M0) on the LTCBTC Ratio as a Wave A of an Expanding, would run into the same problem. So you see, any consideration of an Expanding Triangle would need to have its' first Leg begin with either M1 or M2. When you consider that Wave E of any Expanding Triangle should be the largest Wave, this is, well, kind of a big issue: The Triple Zig Zag will be the largest wave of any Triangle, yet the Triple Zig Zag can not be in the position of Wave E! Going to be tougn to square that circle, or well, triangle it.
The above effectively eliminates any realistic Expanding Triangle Count on a historical Chart such as LTCBTC. Since I am the greatest ever, I will explain the remaining (largely fictional) scenarios that would represent the best case for 'some kind' of Expanding Triangle. To start to bring it all together, the problem with this thinking is that even if it were correct (which again it's not), it would necessarily imply an equally if not much more bullish (in most cases) scenario.
Let's pretend the big issue was a small issue, *and that there was no supporting evidence for one or more, better Counts. This would entail envisioning an Expanding that begins with section M1 or later, and obviously it can not begin with M3. For M1 to be Wave A of an Expanding (as opposed a Contracting), Wave B would fail to fully retrace A, so, even with the full retrace of Wave C, in an Irregular both Waves D and E each would need to FULLY retrace the prior (again more bullish). Using the same Positions, a Running Expanding would not work as Wave B is smaller than Wave A. For Completeness, there is, apparently, an odd variation of the pattern where all waves are larger than the previous, except Wave B, which is shorter than Wave C. In this exotic scenario, a different situation arises, which is actually common to a Contracting Triangle Categorization: the recent move up (M4) is way too small to be the Leg of any Triangle. A Triangle must have Clean Channel lines:
-A smaller degree wave of the prior Segment prevents the creation of a Clean (B-D) Base-line! This is true of *any supposed Wave D *having already completed* (as in incorrectly presumed to have already completed) 'as Segment M4', whether in an Expanding or Contracting.
So, to Count the LTCBTC Ratio as a Running Expanding (the odd variation) will necessarily come with the certainty that the current Leg is in still Progress and will need to make new highs in order to create a Clean Channel line. And really, more simply, and on the topic of 'what comes next': The Leg of *any Triangle of *any Type or Category must achieve a minimum of a .382 retracement of the prior Leg (with the exception of Wave E of a Contracting which is not possible). So, the implications of what is to come in this oddball scenario are not all that different, which is a huge move to the upside no matter how you slice it. It is only what is implied to happen *after the move up, in a Running Expanding that is pragmatically of different.
To consider an Expanding Triangle that begins with M2 as Wave A, you would be attempting to justify a Triple Zig Zag as Wave B, a beyond ridiculous notion in any context. But sure lets do it. As a Horizontal, this would again imply a coming FULL retrace for Wave C, only to be followed by another full retrace making new lows for Wave D, only to be followed by yet another full retrace to new highs for Wave E, possibly to eventually make new lows again after the pattern is complete. Don't hold your breath. A Running Expanding *here would actually be the most imaginably bullish scenario of all as coming Wave C would take LTCBTC to new all time highs. The oddball variation of the Running Expanding does not work. Should you play any of these ridiculous cards, unfortunately for you I will re-raise you all-in on the Running Expanding Triangle Wave C to new ATH's, *except* I can actually fit it into a Count that includes the entire Price history of the LTCBTC ratio...somebodehs bettaaaaa (Adam Sandler voice).
Oh, right, and also, as the greatest ever I did actually discover an oddball-oddball variation (that no one else has) since they have no idea how to read the book: since technically, in a Running Expanding, *two waves are allowed to be shorter than a prior, a third variation exists where by Wave A is shorter than Wave B AND Wave C is shorter than Wave D (say it with me now: Bigger, Smaller, Bigger, Smaller). Good. As it happens, this Kramer variation would still need an A-C line! So here, Wave C would suffer the same issue as described earlier with Wave D in creating a Clean Channel line! And if you are into the real kinky stuff, unfortunately you can not simply use an Abnormal, Expanding Triangle C-E line (another invention of mine) as the Wave E Terminus would destroy the Ascending or Descending 'bent' to the Channel lines (thus unallowably changing the Classification of the Triangle as Running). A Triangle is Classified by 'how it Channels' ...write that down.
The LTCBTC Ratio is *not in an Expanding Triangle. As for Counter Argument B (remember the two main Counter Arguments? Well this is 'Sub-Argument' 1B, I told you I would be getting to everything), this is another example of the failure to recognize the purpose of Counting Waves, and is put forth by those unfit for the task. They are glad to offer up a healthy dose of criticism and skepticism given the opportunity, yet never offer up their own Count. In my view, there is no such thing as a Count being 'wrong' with out an accompanying explanation for which Count is 'right.' Write that also.
The second Counter Argument requires a bit of creativity and the needed additional flexibility provided by the Beaty Method. Due to this aspect, it is unlikely anyone else would propose this count, which necessarily imploys a Candle Stick Measurement to Section M2, justifying *the consideration* of a Flat Correction. In my estimation, this would be the best Non-Triangle explanation for the historical Price action on the LTCBTC Ratio. To be specific, the market would have to have just completed (as opposed to 'being in') a 'B Failure' Flat Correction, which ends in a lower degree Terminally Impulsive Wave C. Similarly, the implications of 'what come next' are even more bullish: a FULL retrace of the supposed eXtended third wave Terminal Impulse, but here within (technically) 25-50% of the time that (new) Segment M3 took to form. So, yet another, more bullish outlook than coming Wave D of a Contracting Triangle. But guess what, this Count is also incorrect. In the following Chart, I explain why:
-As always, all detail and annotation are of significance. In short, the supposed B Failure Flat is only made possible by a reimagining of the end of (former) Section M2. In doing so, the little support a Flat interpretation had going for it is thrown out with the bath water of the supposed later end of the Segment. Note: Do not be fooled into conflating this with how the Time of a Pattern is characteristically impacted by a *lower Degree* Terminal Impulses' overextension of a trend. For instance, a Terminal C Wave vs a C Wave *ending in a Terminal.
The LTCBTC Ratio is in a Horizontal, Contracting Triangle:
Over the years I have spoken at length about *how to read the book (bleh). A common hurdle many beginners have is in the lack of understanding and recognition that, while every part is important, cherry picking any piece of the puzzle and putting it on a pedastol is an exercize that will inevitably lead you to failure. The 'matter of fact' tone that is used throughout is part of the game of appreciating that there is Truth in seemingly contradictory concepts, and thus, to take any one part as gospel as you read through the book will result in all of the hair on your head being pulled out. Conversely, grasping the real significance of any individual part necessarily requires the ability to read for both Subtext *and Context. To be on the offensive for one particular excerpt that the beginner might misinterpret as being in support of this count being wrong, I will quote it here and explain what is likely meant, and if it is not, what should be meant (yes, as the greatest to ever live, my explanation is more important).
The following can be found in Chapter 11 under the heading Contracting Triangles, Sub-headings a. Horizontal, Wave B:
"If wave-b is smaller in price than wave-a, then all the other patterns must be smaller than the previous segment (From Left to Right). If wave-b is bigger than wave-a, the chances are very small (but do exist), that wave-c might be slightly larger than wave-b and still maintain the Contracting Triangle formation. If the c-wave is larger than wave-b, it is mandatory that wave-d be smaller than wave-c or else you are entering the Expanding Triangle realm and should move to that section. In other words, in this type of Triangle, once one segment is smaller in price than the last, all the rest must be smaller than the previous. If this is not the case, the market is not in a Contracting Horizontal Triangle. Maybe it is in some other type of Triangle. Note: Wave-b should not be less than 38.2% or more than 261.8% of wave-a. There may be exceptions to the foregoing guidelines, but they are rare, so be careful about ignoring them."
In this instance, the key is found not just in the subtext, but also context, on many different levels. Context in terms of the paragraph it is in, as well as the entire section describing how each leg of a Triangle may differ (Wave by Wave and according to each Type of Triangle), but most importantly, in terms of how it applies to my analysis of the LTCBTC Ratio. After disecting what is being said in the above excerpt, AND what is being said without being said, I will dig into how the larger section applies to the LTCBTC Ratio.
A common theme in all of my analysis, and I would argue, in the book as well, is that Internal measurement is vastly more important than External. As I have layed out, there is value in viewing the measurement of a Retracement as being in its' own seperate category from the two prior concepts. In the case of Triangles, both of the following ideas emphatically hold true:
a. Internal measurement rules the Price Relativity of waves.
b. Retracement is the tool most relevant with regard to a need to compare Adjacent waves in accordance with the objective implied by its' nomenclature.
Finally, there is one more 'phrase' needed to complete the point: 'For the purpose of Channeling.' In order to properly understand both the 'contracting' excerpt (hint), as well as the larger section, internalizing the above perspective is essential.
Now, I will break down the excerpt bit by bit, providing the subtext and context:
"If wave-b is smaller in price than wave-a, then all the other patterns must be smaller than the previous segment (From Left to Right)."
-Do not fall into the trap of believing an impression about how a given section of a chart might 'look' or seem: Absent an understanding of precisely what it is you are even *looking for*, your thoughts, feelings, and/or perception in the matter are irrelevant. In the context of the LTCBTC Ratio, Wave B is by far the biggest wave at a ~515% change in price. It is easily bigger than Wave C, thus, the above quoted sentence is not applicable.
"If wave-b is bigger than wave-a, the chances are very small (but do exist), that wave-c might be slightly larger than wave-b and still maintain the Contracting Triangle formation."
-As we will eventually get to: despite the fact that Wave C is smaller than Wave B, it is actually the largest leg of the Triangle. In case you haven't listened to any of my past lectures, the word largest implies a Wave is both the biggest *and the longest. And yes: it will maintain its' Contracting Triangle formation. Patience will be required to understand the above paragraph, rest assured, I did not misspeak.
"If the c-wave is larger than wave-b, it is mandatory that wave-d be smaller than wave-c or else you are entering the Expanding Triangle realm and should move to that section."
-As far as the LTCBTC Ratio is concerned, Wave D will indeed be smaller than Wave C, even after the coming rally in prices, so long as it is correctly measured. Contextually, the task at hand is ruling out an Expanding Triangle Classification. To farther accomplish this task, the relevant, Price-relative, measurement of Wave C in relation to Wave B falls underneath the umbrella of finding the biggest wave of a Triangle: the mere happenstance of adjacency to Wave B, is equally important as Wave B's adjacency to Wave A, entirely unimportant to the scope of the above. Given the biggest leg of a Contracting Triangle is known, so long as Wave C (or any wave subsequent to the biggest wave) does not improperly alter the convergence of channel lines--there is zero marginal importance (with regard to LTCBTC or in any other equivalant scenario for that matter).
"In other words, in this type of Triangle, once one segment is smaller in price than the last, all the rest must be smaller than the previous."
-Yes, as for the LTCBTC Ratio, the first Segment that is smaller in price than the previous is Wave C, each subsequent leg will indeed be smaller thereafter: Wave B is bigger than Wave A, Wave C is smaller than Wave B, the final two waves each will be smaller than the prior.
Each of my responses might seem odd, and perhaps, to the unitiated, contradictory, but as you will see they most cetainly are not. Not only are they technically correct, but correct in the spirit of what is true about Triangles and how juan should approach them. Let me explain: First off, as I have always maintained, regarding the Price Relativity of waves: Internal measurement is most important. It seeks to answer the question: "How do I evaluate and compare the size of waves?" In Triangles, the most relevant application is in comparing Waves A, C, and E with each other, and similarly, Waves B and D. Now it becomes important to understand the context.
Take a step back and think about the quoted excerpt. Explicitly, there is an exploring of a scenario where Wave B is bigger than Wave A, and a farther exploring given the condition that Wave C is bigger than Wave B. And what is this all in reference to? Nuance about the legs of a Triangle (in this case a Horizontal) within the Realm of Contracting Triangles. Consider that Wave D can not be the largest leg of any Triangle. Inherent in the prior statement is that Wave D also can not be the biggest leg of any Triangle (a truth that exists in terms of any measurement approach). What am I getting at? I am getting at the fact, that the biggest wave of any Contracting Triangle must be one of the first three waves (A, B, or C). So, in other words, the excerpt revolves around contemplating the biggest leg of a Triangle, and how, in turn, it might affect the rest of a Triangles' formation. Inherent to such a contemplation is the question: "How is the Price-Relative size of waves compared?"
Now, in the name of progressing towards a point: Let us consider both the wider Contracting Triangle Heading, and, the more narrow idea of a Converging (contracting) Manifestation of waves (getting smaller moving from left to right) the context becomes: "How do we compare the Price-Relative size of waves?" ... "For the purpose of Channeling?"
Understand?! Pragmatically the point is a question necessarily made up of two component parts.
With the appropriate context, we can now decipher the subtext that is actually put forth in the following excerpt sentences:
"If the c-wave is larger than wave-b, it is mandatory that wave-d be smaller than wave-c or else you are entering the Expanding Triangle realm and should move to that section."
"In other words, in this type of Triangle, once one segment is smaller in price than the last, all the rest must be smaller than the previous."
-With new eyes, and the decoded subtext provided above, ask yourself: how exactly should a Contracting Triangles' characteristics be evaluated? The answer is easy: First, determine the biggest (Price-relative) wave internally amongst Waves A, B, and C. Second, determine whether or not the remaining waves unfold on a 'contracting basis' *for the purposes of Channeling.*
Put differently: The goal is to verify and validate the existence of converging, opposing Channel lines, and finding a Triangle's biggest wave happens to be a prerequisite. Naturally, at least for the skilled, a comparison of the (Price) relative size of waves is done internally, yet the subsequent verification and validation has *no contemplation* involving an Internally or Externally focused measurement approach. In fact, in this instance, a quantifiable measurement is not even necessary beyond the ability to conclude a Convergence of Channel lines. Drink that in. It plays a vital *part in understanding: Wave C is the Largest wave of the Triangle (on the LTCBTC Ratio (For all intensive purposes)), how that is true, and why it is important that it is true.
Thus far, it is perhaps apparent that the following is notably missing from the specific excerpt and my accompanying comments: a differentiation between 'how each of the three Types of Contracting Triangles channel.' This will be needed in order to properly discuss Waves B and C of the LTCBTC Ratio Triangle. It is not by accident that I have *not completely detailed how each 'Type of Triangle channels,' nor is it's early absence within the Contracting Triangle section of the book (which contains the earlier excerpt).
The early omission of 'how a Horizontal Triangle channels,' is, eventually, indirectly defined. That is to say, we ARE told 'how the other Types of triangles channel' directly(ish in the case of an Irregular Triangle) under the subsequent Triangle Type Headings. What is said, yet left unsaid, is that a Horizontal Triangle is in essence, the broader category of a Contracting Triangle, but defined by categorical negation: A Horizontal Triangle is a Contracting Triangle that is neither an Irregular, nor a Running, Triangle.
Since the purpose of this post is not to cover a book, yet its' relevance in informing the historical Elliot Wave Count of the LTCBTC Ratio does eXtend a bit farther and further to the larger Contracting Triangle Section, I will highlight a few remaining, applicable concepts amidst adding a bit of my own spice to it all. Going forward, the overarching conclusion I will be establishing is that 'Channeling' is the primary differentiating attribute with respect to each Triangle Type.
This conclusion is both directly and indirectly supported by the larger section about Contracting Triangles. Directly, this is fairly obvious in the Classification of a Running Triangle: the 'Terminus' of Waves B and D...For the purposes of channeling...Set this type of Triangle apart from the rest. Due to the potential size of Wave B, which must be the largest leg of the triangle, coupled with the atypical (pattern-unique) minimum retracement needed for Wave D, the converging Channel lines in a Running distinctly form an ascending or descending 'bent.' It should not be controversial to state that the LTCBTC Ratio is indisputably *not in a Running Triangle: both the 12 month time-span taken by Wave B (m2), as well as Wave C's (m3) status as the largest leg make any consideration of the pattern a non-starter. Again, we are talking about the historical chart, and you can refer to the earlier chart I provided to map the labels shown in paranthesis.
To be clear: the word 'Retracement' is explicitly mentioned on numerous occasions throughout this section, and, is the otherwise implied form of measurement for the vast majority of the time. In order to fulfill the sections' purpose of Classifying each Type of Triangle by stipulating the acceptable manners by which their Channel lines Converge, the concept of a Retracement is appropriately used.
The significance of my hammering the above into your head, is to help explain how Channeling subtly classifies an Irregular Triangle: An Irregular Triangle is 'characterised by it's B Wave.' To farther paraphrase: Wave B *must be bigger than Wave A in Price, and rarely will be shorter in Time. Under the Wave A sub-heading of the larger degree Irregular Triangle sub-heading, we are told that Wave B should not be 'much more than 161.8%' of Wave A, do not be fooled by the use of a % sign: Just like ALL of the books' other *Wave Type distinguishing* Wave B (Price) measurements, Retracement is strictly used. Logically, this makes perfect sense, as the aim is to consider how much ground an adjacent wave covered in terms of the prior wave (Wave A).
While the Irregular Triangle sub-section does not directly state this (more later): it is *required* in an Irregular that the Base-line begin from 'above' the start of Wave A, which Typifies the Pattern. Admittedly, the above can occur in each of the other Two Types, yet they *musn't (while the author of this post has never personally witnessed it, in theory, its' *absence could even occur in a Running Triangle: Wave B would still need the requisite *internal size and the Pattern would have to not be explained by any other Classification). To farther unravel this thread, similarly, it is the extent of Retracement achieved by Waves C (as compared to a Horizontal Triangle) and D (as compared to a Running Triangle) which *differentiate how this pattern Channels.
For those who would doubt my above assertion, and to transition from that particular Contracting Triangle Section to my final comments on the book, a farther corroboration of just what exactly it is about Wave B that 'characterizes' an Irregular Triangle can be found in Chapter 10-8 (Advanced Logic Rules) under the heading "I. Limiting" and directly found under the sub-heading "b. Irregular:"
"Since the b-wave in one of these patterns exceeds the end of wave-a, it implies the pattern is more powerful than a Horizontal (in either price direction). The thrust out of this variation can be as much as 161.8% of the widest leg of the Triangle."
Note: The word "end" necessarily refers to 'an end' (as in one of two ends of a given wave) in this case unironically being the *start of Wave A: Since it would literally be impossible for Wave B (contextually: the conclusion of Wave B in an Irregular Triangle) to exceed the 'end end' of Wave A (as they are Counter Directionally Trending to each other), it is easy to determine the word should be taken to mean start. The 'end end' of Wave A also serves as the beginning of Wave B, thus the 'end end' of Wave B could not exceed it's own begining, outside the context of a Negative Retracement. I award you no points, may god have mercy on your soul.
The LTCBTC Ratio is in an 'Abnormal,' Horizontal (Contracting) Triangle:
From any angle you care to look at it, the LTCBTC Ratio is in an 'Abnormal' Horizontal (Contracting) Triangle. The goal of this post was to touch on each of the following conclusions and how they were formed:
The LTCBTC Ratio is in a Triangle: Check
The LTCBTC Ratio is NOT in another Type of Correction: Check
The LTCBTC Ratio is in a Contracting Triangle: Check
The LTCBTC Ratio is NOT in an Expanding Triangle: Check
The LTCBTC Ratio is in a Horizontal Triangle: Check
The LTCBTC Ratio is NOT in a Running or Irregular Triangle: Check
The LTCBTC Ratio is in a Abnormal Triangle: Let's do it
The LTCBTC Ratio is NOT in a 'Normal' Triangle: Baby
The Wave Type is widdled down ('chizzled down,' 'chipped away at,' 'narrowed down' Not: 'I'm a widdle baby who can't count waves') from the broadest of categories. Most (who are not me) gloss over this Pattern in the good book, it does not draw much attention, but it is there, and is also, additionly, spoken about by way of implication (hint). There is a specific criteria needed to be met in order for a Triangle to be considered 'Abnormal.' Anyway, what makes a triangle Abnormal is really, above all, (you guessed it) the manner by which it Channels. The criteria that must be met helps contribute to this differentiation. Is it starting to click?
'Similar' to the Classification process of all other Contracting Triangles, first, the *largest Leg of the Triangle must be determined (here, yes the biggest leg, but additionally the longest, explicitly said to be 'the largest'). Again, sure, as a type of Contracting Triangle there is inherently a subsequent verification and validation of Converging Channel lines. Also again, the manner by which these Channel lines Converge differentiates the Classification! Also, again, this is not explicitly said, yet it is still equally as true. Farther, again, 'Retracement *Levels' are, similarly, used in pursuit of differentiating 'how the Pattern Channels.' Here, my use of the term 'Retracement Level' is a bit of a misnomer (sorta kinda) in that the aim is not truly to measure how much 'ground' was lost or retraced. Yet, the meaning of the term as far as it's logic is well understood, even outside the world of Elliot Wave. In this case, though, the true differentiating factor in Classification is, totally unambiguous: Channeling.
I didn't say there was no subtext, I said it was unambiguous: The Pattern is differentiated by 'how it Channels'. Oh, and if you don't believe me about any of this, refer to Chapter 12 in "Mastering Elliot Wave" Advanced Neely Extensions 12-17 and check out the three diagrams which illustrate the different ways a Contracting Triangle 'Contra Base line' can be imployed. Tell me, just exactly what Type of Triangle is Diagram B?! Prease, do tell. Also, prease do tell: Are you sure Wave B MUST be bigger than Wave A--in order for Wave C to be bigger than B?
Anyway, in an Abnormal Contracting, Wave E must conclude outside of '61.8% of the longest Wave of the Triangle, centered in the largest wave' ...do not be fooled by the use of a % sign frens (as opposed to a fraction): it is not relevant. Basically, in this Type of Triangle, one of the two other (abnormal) 'Contra Base-lines' will be imployed depending upon the Terminus of the larger of Waves A and C. Really, as funny as it might sound, part of the prior statement should, in truth, be ammended to: 'Depending upon the Terminus of Waves A and C, for the purpose of Channeling (the closer in Price to Wave E), which ultimately dictates the larger of the two waves.' I say this because, despite the reality that most of the time both trains of thought will agree as to which wave is the largest (in this case), 'disagreements' are possible. Compare this manner of Channeling with that of a 'Normal Triangle,' where the (normal) A-C 'Contra Base-line will be imployed and it all starts to make sense.
How to measure the Biggest, Longest, and Largest Leg in a Triangle and Chart Scaling:
So, to put a period on it: Wave C is the largest leg of the Contracting Triangle on the LTCBTC Ratio. It is the largest because it is both the longest in Time and the biggest in Price (for the purpose of Channeling). Yes, there are two biggest Waves depending on what the precise aim is, which determines how it should be accomplished...for the purpose of Channeling. Wave B is the Price-Relative biggest wave (measured Internally). Yes, I am aware this is a prerequisite step towards determining the biggest Leg of a Contracting Triangle, for the purpose of Channeling. Guess what: *How the biggest or largest leg of a Triangle is determined, depends on 'how a given **Type** of Triangle Channels.'
Hands down, for the purpose of Channeling, Wave C is the biggest wave, above all, due to 'how an Abnormal, Horizontal (Contracting) Triangle Channels.' 'How an Abnormal, Horizontal Contracting Triangle Channels' is necessarily informed by the fact that it is, more broadly, a Contracting Triangle, thus it is, in a sense, indirectly informed by the fact that Wave B is the biggest wave (as far as the Price-Relativity of Waves goes).
There are at least three good reasons that, ultimately, again, Wave C is the biggest leg of the LTCBTC Triangle:
1. Time: Every Triangle must have a largest leg, and part of that, is that this leg must be, at least from a certain angle, also considered the biggest leg. So, since Wave C is the longest Time-wise, it would be tough to make a case for any of the other three waves being the largest wave, especially when you consider the next two reasons.
2. Wave Type: Wave C is a Triple Zig Zag, a Pattern which must be the largest wave of *any larger Pattern, including a Triangle. If Wave C must be the largest wave...this also dictates that it is the biggest wave, as the largest wave is *both the biggest (Price-wise) and the longest (Time-wise).
3. Channeling: MOST IMPORTANTLY, Wave C is biggest Leg...for the purpose of Channeling. Well, akshually, in this case, it is the largest leg...for the purpose of Channeling, which dictates that it is also the biggest leg. Channeling is what differentiates each Type of Triangle, have I mentioned this? In an Abnormal, Horizontal, Contracting Triangle, the manner by which Converging Channel lines are different, is that the 'Contra Base-line' will connect either Wave A or Wave C to Wave E, depending upon which Terminus is closer in Price to the Terminus of Wave E (appearance-wise this will usually take the form of a 'flatter' Contra Base-line than that of a Normal Triangle). Since Time is arguably of a bit more importance in how an Abnormal, Contracting channels, here it is the largest wave that dictates the biggest wave (in theory but in my view not in practice)...for the purpose of Channeling. Inherent to this Logic is the assumption that Time plays a relatively bigger role (because otherwise the biggest wave would be used) in influencing the likelihood that the bigger of Waves A or C (yes) will Cleanly connect to Wave E. Put differently: There is a bigger weight on the 'degree of Non-Directionality' of a Wave, necessarily anticipating its' effect on the bigger of the two waves Cleanly connecting to Wave E. Mkay?
Lost on the vast majority of readers, is the understanding that there is 'Logic' at play. If you wish to understand the book, or what I have been laying out in this post, you must drop what you think a word 'means.' The same word or term can have different meanings in different contexts. To be clear: I am not refering to the reality that different people will always, *to some extent*, have their own interpretation of what something means, but rather, how an author can intentionally and justifiably use the same word in different contexts 'differently.' For example, compare the following two sentences: Bob is a Lawyer, he 'practices' Law. After work, he 'practices' basketball. The example is not perfect, but it gets the point across: the word 'practice' is not misused, it has a very different meaning depending upon the context, yet there is a general consensus as to how the words' meaning changes in each case. And no, in the prior sentence, I do not mean 'case' as in a Law case, you, the reader, obviously know this by taking the context of the sentence into account (not a thing with a balance, okay you get it). Not only is this idea true of everyday language, but it is of extreme importance when reading for subtext. In the book, Terms are defined using a specific Logic, yet language is amviguous, when there is a conflict or contradiction between the two, it is the established hierarchy of Logic that rules.
Anyway, akshually, if arguing over the biggest Leg of a Triangle--without any regard as to *why it matters--is your goal, sure, I'll play: There is an argument to be made that each of the first three legs are the biggest Leg, each in their own way. Wave C is the biggest leg for all three of the reasons listed earlier. Wave B is the biggest leg Internally. As it would happen, Wave A is the biggest leg on a Raw, total change in Price basis, the others are nowhere near as close! So why is Wave A not the biggest wave for any relevant reason? That is easy, it is the same reason that Log Scale should be used on the chart: Any market Pair that has (or is expected to) experience explosive growth in Prices should be analysed accordingly. In other words, in these markets, absent this scaling, there is no way to appropriately compare past, current, and future price movements on a *relative basis. On a Linear Chart, the most recent explosive move dwarfs any past moves distorting the Frame or 'Field of View,' history is made to be entirely irrelevant, when it is, obviously, relevant. On a similar note, using the Raw change in Price of a wave as opposed to the percentage change, distorts the 'relativity' of moves: Again, Wave A using the Raw change in Price presents the data as if the following 515% rally as well as subsequent 91% decrease in Price were of little to no significance. Ask someone who used Bitcoin to buy Litecoin before the rally, and sold anywhere in the viscinity of the top if there nearly 5x the amount of Bitcoin is of no significance. Similarly, ask the other person who did the same thing prior to the subsequent drop, if the 1/10 amount of Bitcoin they now have is of no significance. Not only are these moves of great significance in any analysis, but they are actually of more signifcance, slightly so in the case of Wave C. That is all irrespective of Elliot Wave.
No matter what approach is used in all of this stuff, there will always be tradeoffs. In charting the LTCBTC Ratio (or any coins paired against each other), Elliot Wave or not, using the Raw changes in Price will wildly distort your impression of the data, and what it means. The decision to use Log Scale goes hand in hand with using % measurement over Raw data, the only difference being that one has an effect on how given, chosen data is measured and the other has an effect on the presentation of the larger data set. It is the same mindset that recognizes the severe disadvantage in both Raw change in Price measurement and Linear Scaling of an exponentially growing market.
Conclusion: The LTCBTC Ratio is NOT in a 'Normal' Triangle:
Due to Terminus of the largest leg of what will be a Contracting, Horizontal Triangle, the Contra Base-line will necessarily have to be a 'C-E Line.' The Terminus of Wave A can not be used in a 'Normal' Contracting Triangle! To do so would create a descending Contra Base-line. Thus, by way of negation, it can actually be concluded that the LTCBTC Ratio is in an Abnormal, Horizontal (Contracting) Triangle. Using this technique, such a conclusion can actually be made before the Triangle is complete. This creates a rare opportunity in that, usually, this can not be done reliably in an Expanding Triangle (their Classification must be done 'after the fact'). There is also relatively more predictive value than any other Contracting Triangle in that we can already deduce a reasonable estimate for the size of Wave E subsequent to the coming Wave D rally:
-Wave E must touch the Line created by connecting Wave C with the M4 Interim Low.
-Since Wave A can not be the smallest leg of any Contracting Triangle, Wave E must be smaller than Wave A.
-Wave E will likely relate to Waves A and/or C in Price and/or Time by a Fibonacci Ratio. While this is not unique to an Abnormal, it is of more significance due to the nature of Wave E in an Abnormal, as well as this one in particular.
Wave E aside, we know that the coming rally must not only make new highs sufficient to create a Clean Base-line, but farther it must achieve, at a minimum, a .382 Retracement of the prior leg, on the LTCBTC Ratio that is a BIG move:
-Wave C Retracement Levels
Not much unlike the failure to understand *what a Count means* by Ellioticians, is the inability, more generally, of analysts to properly put a move into perspective. The above context of the move is on a coin's (Litecoin) Price *against Bitcoin*, in what is the precipice of the largest bull market in the history of Bitcoin:
The coming Wave D rally is, in it of itself, a big deal. In terms of what the larger Abnormal Triangle suggests about the big picture, there is a lot to be gleemed here as well. The Contracting Horizontal 'status' alone, already provides a minimum, longer term, upside projection in that the larger Degree 'move to follow' must take LTCBTC to new ATHs (the price must exceed the *begining* of Wave A). The prior statement is true regardless of the Triangles' Categorization as Limiting or Non Limiting. With that said, the Classification of an Abnormal suggests the Triangle is actually a Non Limiting Triangle (in terms of what the Wave Type in it of itself implies).
As it would happen, there is indeed a larger Count such a Triangle would fit into. It is a Count that I have spoken about in the past. Beyond that, I'm afraid I can't say much more, it won't be easy. Good luck.
Litecoin: A Treaties on Triangle Strategy Pt. 1LTCBTC: A TreatDasin Triangle Strategy
Many have been asking for an update on the following Published chart:
And more specifically, just exactly what I was getting at with my fairly cryptic update showing the following chart snapshot:
It is now time to provide the more in depth analysis and some clarity as to why I am certain there is a huge move to the upside that is in progress (since my initial published chart on the LTCBTC ratio the price has rallied and subsequently pulled back). While I have dug into the lower time frames in more recent updates, I haven't touched on the Monthly chart and, more importantly, I have not explicitly revealed how the Triple Zig Zag Correction (see: Magic Juaned published chart above) fits into the historical count, what that count is, and what it means going forward.
As you will see by the end of this analysis, and as I have *hinted throughout, the ratio has been in a Wave D corrective rally ever since completing the Triple Zig-Zag shown earlier. A Triple Zig-Zag is a Non-Standard Correction composed of a series of three Zig Zags (Standard Corrections) namely W, Y, and Z, that are connected by two 'Small' X Waves. So, the sequence of Progress Labels W-X-Y-X-Z comprise the entire five wave move whereby Waves W, Y, and Z move directionally 'with' the Trend of the larger Non Standard Correction and Waves X and X move against it or Counter to the Trend. By the end of this I will make the case that this Non-Standard Correction is itself (Positionally) a larger degree Wave C. Even a beginner can tell you that a Wave D, in it of itself, implies a leg of a Triangle. To ensure we are all on the same page as I break this all down, see the following snapshot:
-I have seperated the Monthly line chart into 5 sections that we can easily refer to labeled M0, M1, M2, M3, and M4. The exchange used (on this and all other) presented Charts within this Post was Bitfinex. The LTCBTC 'Pair,' is the tradeable market of one Cryptocurrency (Litecoin) 'paired' against another Cryptocurrency (Bitcoin), which is often referred to as the LTCBTC Ratio. Naturally, due to arbitrage, the Pair does closely track the actual ratio of LTCUSD to BTCUSD. Must I explain what USD is? Perhaps so in the future. Yes, that was a jab.
The LTCBTC Ratio is in a Contracting Triange. To be precise, the Contracting Triangle is an 'Abnormal' (an Elliot Wave term with a distinct meaning and logic used in ^Glen Neely's book "Mastering Elliot Wave"), Horizontal Triangle. As mentioned, the Triple Zig Zag is in the Position of Wave C (on the prior chart the section labeled M3). Waves A and B will be shown to be the two preceding sections M1 and M2. At the risk of redundancy, let me again state that not only is M3 is a Correction (in Structure), but more specifically, it is a Triple Zig Zag, a vital premise that informs my analysis. If you disagree with this, an alternative explanation will need to be provided--should you hope to even merit my response. This alternative explanation will also have to fit into some kind of sensible, larger, Elliot Wave Count. The sentiment behind these requirements will be a common theme and applies to the larger count I will be presenting as well. To be frank: demonstrate your count or gtfo.
^Note: Apparently there was a co-author, so technically, the book was written 'with Eric Hall'
Part 1:
Introduction:
Before getting into my charts, it is essential to lay out the requisite groundwork that will arm the audience with the appropriate level of understanding needed to approach such a sophisticated (for people who aren't me) subject matter. The following can largely be derived both implicitly and explicitly from Glen Neely's book, with perhaps, a few additional eXtensions of my own. In the case of the latter, I will simply be touching on a couple of ideas I have already spoken about at length, but mostly filling in the gap of what is said in the book by being left unsaid, as well as pointing out subtle nuances that are frequently overlooked by the reader. There have been many books written on the broader subject of what I will call "Wave Theory" yet there is only one (Title and other information mentioned earlier) necessary to read. Read it if you will, but if you will, read it. After reading it a few thousand more times, eventually you will find that everything. is. there. for. a. reason.
The link below is the first video in one of my long (this should be taken to mean Time-wise unless otherwise specified) published video series:
It is mostly about the Chart Scaling and Measurement tools that should be used on any and all explosive growth assets such as Cryptocurrencies. Oh and I should clarify that by 'published' I of course mean on Tradingview, as opposed to the (less important) Academic process of 'Peer Review.' And it is with this in mind I will politely suggest all of my esteemed fellow Tradingview peers to 'throw a Like' at cha boy should you enjoy or agree with this Post (oh and there will be multiple parts FYI). Anyway, in the older, above linked video series, I do get a bit into the difference between measuring and searching for the 'Internal' and 'External' relationships often found in various Wave Types, mostly building upon the foundations set in the book. Admittedly, like all of my video series which spend hours tackling the near-impossible task of summarizing and effectively explaining a highly complex subject matter and chopping it up into digestable chunks of content, errors were likely made along the way and later corrected and/or clarified. Off the top of my head, a point I failed to make clear applies to the Elliot Wave topic of Internal vs External Relationships: Time necessarily applies discretely to Waves, in other words, two distinct waves can not independently share a given range in time. The relevance being that this property is NOT common to Price: Two distinct waves *can independently share a given range in Price (at different points in time).
While the above may seem obvious, it was not an easy idea to communicate on the spot, and it's truth depends upon the precision of language used. For instance, without the key word "Independently," the first statement is, at least, in part, wrong: it is entirely true to state that two distinct waves *of a larger pattern* can and do share the same range of time. As in, Waves A and C of larger Wave Z share (or 'exist within' (Not: "The two kids shared silly ideas about waves with the rest of the class.")) the same 20 month range, does that make sense? Hopefully it provides one piece of the puzzle that is this topic, let's give you a few more.
As we are shown in the book, there are different approaches to searching for relationships between and amongst waves. As you may know by now, relationships in Time are the most important, yet relationships in Price are meaningful as well. With respect to Price and/or Time, the measurement of 'Internal' Relationships between or amongst waves is, perhaps, fairly intuitive: The change in Price and/or Time of a given wave is compared with another wave (or waveS). Due to the fact that distinct waves can independently occupy the same range in Price, but can *not independently occupy the same range in Time, External relationships (as defined in the book) can only be found in Price. So you see, given the hope and belief there is a significance in measuring two or more waves such that their overlapping range in Price is taken into account (outside of the context of 'Retracement'), a seperate approach was created to 'externally' compare waves.
Note Preface: The long (too long) series of paragraphs that follow, between the dashed (not dotted (there is a difference you know)) lines, are a clarification of word choice. Feel free to move past it and onto the continuation of my analysis.
-------------------------------------------
Note: In three different instances above the word 'range' is intentionally used over the words 'level,' 'point'/'period,' and 'duration.' While it is also technically true that, in the case of Time for example, two waves can not independently share the same duration in Time, the use of this particular word fails to most properly communicate the intended concept: The word duration, in it of itself, implies such is applied to a singular noun. Thus, to state that it does not, can not, or should not be applied to more than one noun is closer to explicitly reaffirming the definition of the word as opposed to actually conveying anything meaningful.
The intention here is to 'speak to' a concept that revolves around, on the contrary, multiple nounS (in this case waves) and their degree of ability (really, their degree of ability--with respect to--their innate quality) to achieve: a sharing of a span in time. A range in time is a 'construct' that exists, linguistically at least, independent of the nouns that 'occupy' it, or 'share' it, or 'anything' it. Conversely, a duration in time is, again, inherently suggesting a given 'things'' (possesive s, **one thing, not: multiple thingS**) 'occupation' of it. So, it is easy to see how the word range much more effectively communicates the idea, which is really a bringing to bare the qualitative difference of how waveS (quite specifically 'Plural') interrelate, with respect to Price, and then, with respect to Time.
Much easier to explain is the incorrect choice of the words level (in terms of Price) or period (logic wise--as put forth by the book (hint))/point (in terms of Time). In this case, such a word choice would not only not effectively communicate the idea, but it would unequivocally state it incorrectly. Take for example, a Zig Zag Correction: The idea is that Waves A and C can not independently share (again) the same range in Time as Wave B, yet they can and do share the same range in Price as Wave B. To substitute the words level or period/point would, in either case, be categorically incorrect: The size of Wave B in Price is most certainly not a level, and, the length of Wave B in Time is most certainly not a Point or Period (by the books logic). Caution: do not confuse the semantic presentation of the argument with the argument itself. The description of a change in Price or Time, vs how it is mathematically derived, is not relevant to *this context*, and, *in certain contexts* CAN be used interchangeably. Ironically enough, to take any issue with the truth of the prior statement, despite the fact that it is, of course, true, is to argue *my* initial point (really reply), but for the wrong reasons.
-------------------------------------------
External to the overlap amongst the two concepts, Retracement seeks to answer a different question: To what extent was the prior waves' progression in Price 'undone?' The focus is on adjacent waves: A wave's change in price is measured in terms of the preceding wave (not necessarily of the same degree, Note: Retracement is a popular tool in wider Technical Analysis). The contemplation is in effect: How much ground was lost? On the other hand, both (in theory) Internal and External approaches measure what I call the 'Price Relativity' between or amongst waves. In this case, the focus shifts towards how to compare the 'size' of *any two or more waves of a Pattern.
Those who have been following me know by now that it is the Internal approach to measuring the Price Relativity of waves which is (by far) more important in the Cryptocurrency markets. As I have said, understanding the concept of Externality is, perhaps, of value, yet it's practical application to counting waves of a Cryptocurrency pair will be rare, if ever.
It might not seem like it, but a tremendous amount of progress has been made towards arriving at the Elliot Wave count on the LTCBTC Ratio (progress towards a goal implies a given direction and depends upon what the goal is). A big part of the stage has been set, let's set the rest.
In the Technical Analysis world, on a chart, the outputs of a Fibonacci Price Measurement tool are often referred to as Fibonacci 'Levels' representing 'Retracements' and 'Extensions.' In the book (again Title mentioned earlier), the concept of a Wave Retracement to a certain numeric 'Level' is frequently used in the logic, diagrams, and examples throughout, yet the terms are mostly defined indirectly, and in one instance: smooshed underneath the heading of 'External' in Chapter 12. Thus, why I felt it necessary to distinguish between the different conceptual aims at play, as it provides an opportunity to uniquely differentiate how all of these terms should be used. From a certain angle, admittedly, it should be stated that each and every one of these ideas are inherently intertwined: So, of course, to pretend they are not all fundamentally inseperable, is to remove the glue that holds them all together. Yet, in another breath, *it is* indeed beneficial for juans' understanding to look through the eyes of each angle.
Note: Let me be clear, and this is very, very important: I do not quite literally mean that each angle has a pair of eyes that can be 'looked through.' In writing (I do not quite literally mean writing as in on a piece of paper) this is called Personification. Reader be advised, T'will do you well to officially proceed with a removing all 'stick like' objects from ana cavities they currently reside in before reading any farther. The allusion implicit within the prior statement is referred to as a 'figure of speech.' Yes, I know--I know, it's all just so hard to understand.
With different angles in mind: it is important to understand how specific Wave Patterns are 'Channeled.' Cracking the historical Count on the LTCBTC Ratio would take most a life time, for me it was a piece of cake (if that cake had three sides, oh and five legs...wHaT kInD oF f'D uP cAkE dO yOu EaT!?). The key is in applying all of the above plus a true understanding of 'how Triangles Channel.' To the beginner, this is easier said than done, so if that's you: Feel free to take my care-free attitude with a necessary grain of salt. Yet for me, saying it will be just as easy as doing it: There are many types of triangles, each with a unique Construction, Logic, and Post-Constructive Logic. For those with ADHD, you might want to PAY ATTENTION HERE: All three of the above are irrevocably intertwined (to use the word of the day) with 'how a given Type of Triangle Channels.'
So wot are these Ehl-E-ot wuaves and Dub-TF is a Triangle? Well, here goes: Triangles are themselves Standard Corrections, yet they can be found (Positionally) within both Standard or Non-Standard Corrections. Remember? We spoke about the categories, didn't we? Structurally, the Triangle Pattern is always Corrective, not Impulsive (it is a ':3' as opposed to a ':5' (but sorry, yes, as odd as it might appear in symbol: *This particular ':3' does in fact have five Segments*)). Constructionally, all Triangles are composed of 5 Counter Directional (to one another, consecutive) Waves or 'Legs.' The sequence of Progress Labels for these waves is as follows: A-B-C-D-E. Each and every Leg (or 'Sub-Wave') of the Triangle must, itself, have a Corrective Structure. Part vs Whole, undastand? Post-Constructively, Triangles can be further and farther behaviorly (no not literally...ehr...you get it, well, perhaps not 'you') categorized into Limiting vs Non-Limiting.
Nominally, these labels loosely refer to the extent of Limitation (or lack thereof) directly placed upon the 'move to follow,' referred to (degree-agnostically) as the 'Thrust.' Yet, it is both A. the Construction of a Triangle (the manner by which its' legs unfold) and B. 'how it Channels' that *Pre-Constructively ('before the fact') and *Constructively ('during the fact') determine its' initial Categorization as Limiting or Non-Limiting, only to be later *Post-Constructively (after the fact) revisited more conclusively(ish). Oh, and by the way, when juan thinks about it deeply enough, this Post-Constructive Logic is, in truth, informed by both the Triangle's Construction and Channeling. Such entertwinement (ze conception of ze followin words havin a baby: intertwine and entertainment), much WOW.
Okay, enough of the foreplay, let's get into the details. No, seriously there's a lot more. Like--a lot--a lot. Beyond falling into the categories of Standard vs Non-Standard, and Limiting vs Non-Limiting, a Triangle must be further and farther categorized based upon the specific manner by which 'it channels.' More generally, **In order to qualify as a Triangle, a Triangle MUST have a 'Clean' B-D Line,** keep this in mind for later. Conversely, there must also be, for lack of a better term, and not because I can't think of it, but rather, because it doesn't exist yet, officially, yet, an opposing Channel line which (also) Cleanly connects two of the three following Waves: Waves A, C, and/or E. Depending upon whether these two lines, moving from left to right, Converge or Diverge, they are grouped into the categories of Expanding vs Contracting Triangles. For completeness, before moving on, I will add that the B-D Line, often referred to as the 'Base Line,' provides in part (in it of itself), a basis for evaluating one 'stage' (the other stage being Wave E itself) of Post-Constructive Logic. Note: Additionally, as I briefly * touched on earlier, the two 'opposing' Channel lines also play a part in informing the Post-Constructive evaluation of the Pattern, yet, as opposed to Stages 1 and 2, the focus is on the 'Thrust(s).'
There are three major Types of Triangles, each of which help classify a Triangle belonging to *any of the three, broader, binary categories previously mentioned: Horizontal, Irregular, and Running. While it is not the only factor, as I will prove in this post, it is *primarily Channeling that determines a Triangles' Classification. Irrespective of how the two opposing Channel lines (Base-Line and 'Contra Base- Line' (my own term (told ya))) 'move' i.e. on an Expanding vs Contracting basis: They will necessarily have an Ascending, Descending, or Horizontal 'bent' to them. When the Channel lines of a Triangle have an Ascending or Descending 'bent,' it is classified as a Running Triangle. We will dive deeper into this all soon enough.
The LTCBTC Ratio Elliot Wave Count:
The LTCBTC Ratio is in an 'Abnormal,' Horizontal (Contracting) Triangle. Before getting into the nitty gritty, first allow me to explain why it must be categorized as a Contracting Triangle. For the sake of brevity amidst a dense post, and with consideration there is much more to come, I will be laying out premises that either:
A. I have covered in the past in much greater detail.
B. I will cover now.
C. Should not be hard to be taken at face value or independently researched, verified, and validated (given the appropriate level of requisite knowledge).
D. Are open to (good faith) refutation in the comments, although I don't expect it. Afterall, I am the greatest to ever live, so there's that.
Moving on. As we should all now know (say that ten times fast, on qualudes (optional)), every leg of a Contracting Triangle must be Corrective in Structure. I will give a brief explanation as to how this applies to the LTCBTC Ratio. Again, each secion of the chart will be referenced as follows:
Structure and Construction of M1-M3:
M1
Section M1 is clearly Corrective in Structure. To speak qualitatively: In Impulses, the acceleration (steepening) of the trend usually occurs around the middle of a properly proportioned and scaled chart. Clearly, that is not what happens in Section M1. The Segment (in my logic this simply means a not yet categorized or classified wave) can be divided into three (easily discernable) 'Sub-Segments' eligible for inclusion in the Classification of the larger Pattern.
Note:
For the robots: these Sub-Segments (which in the book are tekshualinicly Segments (because the process begins from the perspective of a speck of dust)) should be 'Compacted' as part of the process of, potentially (should god arrive here on earth and bless it), being grouped into a larger Pattern, which might, one day, in theory, actually become part of an Elliot Wave Count, conditional upon Peer Review, but don't count on it.
In contrast to classic impulsive 'behavior' (as described earlier), the second Sub-Segment of the three, moves counter to the trend of the larger Segment, occupying its' middle portion. This behavior is actually more characteristic of Corrective activity. It is important to understand that, by design, it is much harder to satisfy the criteria needed to categorize a Wave as Impulsive in Structure, as opposed to Corrective in Structure. Any structural determination must be accompanied by the necessary underlying 'burden of proof' needed for Impulse Categorization.
In this case, not only is it easy to declare that M1 is 'not an Impulse' (you see what I did there?), but additionally, that it actually 'is a Correction.' Before moving on to Classification, I will also mention the extent of Retracement achieved by Segment M1 (the Section presupposed as eventually becoming a wave in a count, one day, in theory, but let's not jump to any conclusions) in terms of the adjacent, preceding Segment M0: The greater than .618 Retracement of the prior Segment disqualifies the consideration of Segment M1 as an Impulsive Wave A. Post-Constructively, we can say that without an explanation for why Segment M2 failed to fully retrace Segment M1 within the time it took Segment M1 to form (37 months, *for now* just take my word for it, I will show the duration of each Section later, I pinky swear) the remaining edge case arguments for a (non Wave A) Impulse as Segment M1 can be safely ruled out.
All of this is, in reality, beating a horse that has already been sent to the after life. Not only has the preceding and subsequent price action confirmed what I call the 'Market-based Proof of Work' needed to declare Segment M1 as a Correction, but the Construction of the Pattern (now we are graduating from Elementary School and flirting with the process of actually Counting Waves) puts a Cherry on top of it all. M1 is quite clearly a Zig Zag (see below chart):
-The Equality in Price of what will be *lower Degree* Waves A and C (how is the mood striking you now?) are a tell tale sign of a 'Normal' Zig Zag Correction. In the above Chart, Waves A and C are, of course, measured *Internally (Price-wise) as all Impulses should be, by default. But I'll try to refrain from talking dirty while the kids are still home.
The shallow Retracement of Wave B eliminates all other potential Classifications of the larger Pattern. I should clarify (apparently) that the above conclusion is made exactly within the context of *this Chart*. If that sounds weird, don't worry, it's not you.
Surely, (I'll call you whatever I want) you will also find signs of Impulsive action at a 'polywave or higher' level in both Waves A and C using a lower Interval Time Period (as opposed to the Monthly Time Unit), but such an excersize would be a waste of time as there is nothing that could be found that would impact the Pattern's Classification, given the supporting evidence already taken into account.
The perspective of Complexity *Levels is a topic I have obliterated ad nauseum in many past lectures (I think we are going to have to use protection for this). With an understanding that such a huge number of price changes are large enough to materially register a visible 'wave' on any given chart, I can say unequivocally that any approach to Counting Waves that actually gives significance to the strict, logic-based quantification of an exact number of waves 'in a move' (using Aspect 1, Aspect, the bends, etc) is complete nonsense. As the same book will tell you, given you know how read it (more on this later), not only can waves be 'Missing,' but more importantly, there can be 'visible' waves which are 'incidental.' The reality that some, perhaps even more than not, depending on your chart proportion and scaling, waves will inevitably be found to be incidental makes the rigid enforcement of these rules, well, silly. Yes, silly. Even attempting to apply them is an utter waste of time. Once you graduate high school you will realize that all of these 'rules' are as valuable as their ability to help you find *the best* Count. Rules that relegate each and every count as incorrect should be properly ammended or thrown out. 'What happened last night?'
If the subject is of interest, I have done countless hours on how it should be properly applied, and made plenty of Charts using it correctly, feel free to indulge. With regard to the Zig Zag (okay fine but it has got to be a quickie), in the rigid sense, Wave B would be too 'simple' to be grouped with more intricate Waves A and C 'by the book.' For those living in reality, where the goal of Elliot Wave is to actually explain and predict Price Action, it is easy to acknowledge how insignificant (to wildly understate it) such a minor issue is to the Classification of a Zig Zag. Even the book itself will support everything I have said, just in a more subtle tone, and implicitly. Using my correct ammended approach to the determination of a waves' of 'Complexity Level': One or perhaps even two of Waves A and C would likely fall under the label of what I have called a 'Complex Mono,' in other words a (Level 0) Monowave, 'whos'' visible subdivisions provide a hint of a more specific Wave Type at a lower Time Interval (in this instance: a hint of which Sub-Impulse is the eXtended wave).
Other means of 'wiggle room' are provided throughout the Beaty Method such as the allowance for Missing B Waves, Candle Stick Measurement of a specific 'end' of a Wave, the Effectivity of the end of waves (two or more 'effective ends' of a Wave *for different purposes*), etc. The goal of these techniques is to enable the actual Counting of Waves in order to explain and predict Price Action. Markets are dynamic, any approach that fails to appreciate this can be cast into the depths of Academic circle-jerking about Fictional markets. Ironically, in this post I will be revealing a 'historical count' which analyzes the entire history of a Market Pair in a more cold, calculated, extensive manner.
Anywhoo, one of these days I'll have to tell you what I *really* think. Back to it.
M2
M2 and M3 Structurally are 'not Impulses.' The best Classification for M2 is a Truncated Zig Zag:
-The equality in Time between Waves A and C is yet another tell tale sign of a Zig Zag. Due to the small size of Wave C (Less than 61.8 % increase in Price compared to Wave A), the Zig Zag must necessarily be labeled as a 'Truncated Zig Zag.' Of Sections M1-M3, the Patterns *Direct* Classification is, perhaps, the least conclusive, yet: it is fairly easy to conclude (even directly). Yes.
The Candle Stick Measurement used to measure the 'end' of Wave C is only relevant to the extent that it nudges the size of Wave C above the 38.2 % threshold needed relative to Wave A (Internally, of course). Yet, it is essential to understand that the same technique would be needed (on a different wave) in order to argue for the next most likely Classification (a Flat Correction). By all means, feel free to imploy any and all of my custom tecniques, as always, but you will have a hard time finding enough (if any) evidence in support of a Flat Correction. Equality in Price, Time, or both is, again, a classic characteristic of Zig Zags. Alternatively, it is rare that a Flat would not posses at a minimum, a Time-based Relationship amongst *all three* waves. Amongst other things, the above points provide a strong rationale for the relevant, relative Classification, and are sufficient enough to close the case.
M3
M3 is a Triple Zig Zag Correction. Structurally, again, it is decisively 'not an Impulse.' If anything, the only potential for Impulsive action anywhere in the viscinity of the Section, would require an inclusion of the Price action in Section M4, and such a consideration would fall under the more exotic Classification of an eXtended 3rd wave Terminal Impulse. Fear not, I will sufficiently dismantle such a notion (which of course no juan else could have even conceived of themselves) later in the post. For now, we will stick with the premise that the end of Section M3 represents 'the end of a major elliot wave correction,' as the data Directly, emphatically tells us. In other words: Constructionally (Careful: not 'Constructively') everything about the Segment *and Sub-Segments scream "Triple Zig Zag." So much so that I would frame the earlier sentence about any consideration of Impulsive activity as I have, that is to say: there is no doubt the Patterns' 'Integrity' will be maintained in Posterity (Pos-Ter-ily? ...Pos-a-bree).
There is simply no other way to count the five-wave move (using sound Elliot Wave principles) other than a series of three Standard Corrections (Zig Zags) connected by two 'Small' X Waves comprising the larger Non-Standard Correction. More generally, each chart Section (M1-M3) should be viewed through the lens of a 'Polywave or higher' Wave by virtue of the fact that each Segment subdivides. In this realm, it is basically Time, Time Rules, Price, Complexity (not necessarily Levels), and Channeling that Directly inform Degree. With this in mind, it will be extremely hard to even present a plausible explanation for M3 as anything other than a Wave composed of five Sub-Waves *of the same degree.* Given this is acknowledged, as well as the clear Trending (as opposed to Non-Trending) nature of the Wave, the question becomes: Is this Wave an Impulse (of any variety) or is it a Non-Standard Correction (containing two 'small' X Sub-Waves)?
From this perspective, the answer is conclusively that M3 is 'not an Impulse,' yet, here the same burden of proof idea is applied Constructionally (not Structurally). In this instance, Structure, and its' baggage, are a by-product of Wave Type. To argue for an Impulse would require the satisfying of a swath of criteria one part of which is applied to the eXtended Wave. Constructionally, the eXtended Wave would determine the supposed Impulses' Wave Type, in order to be eligible for comaprison to what is clearly a Triple Zig Zag Correction. As much as I would like to consider such a Classification, it is unclear just exactly which part of the five-wave (Sub-wave) move would qualify as a candidate for the eXtended (Sub-Impulsive) Wave, at least not with consideration of all the other criteria needed to be satisfied for an Impulse Classification.
On the other hand, again, everything present in the five-wave move actively supports a Triple Zig Zag Classification. Charts speak loader than words, and with that, see the following Published Chart focused on Section M3:
-Above all, Channeling is the biggest factor that contributes to the Patterns Classification. The 'exposed' Channel * 'Touch Points,' in a broader sense, suggest the behavior between Parallel Channel Lines is Corrective. More specifically, the larger Pattern 'channels as a Non-Standard' should in that there is a Clean 'B-B Line' that is, without coincidence, paralleled by an opposing Channel Line with more than one, relevant degree, 'Touch.' Note: Careful here, what the interaction with these Channel Lines imply Degree-wise is very different in an Impulse.
***Boring but neccessary part of the post is now complete...if you like Counting Waves that is***
The LTCBTC Ratio is in a Triangle:
As I mentioned, there would be a common theme throughout this post: Put up or shut up. The whole, larger post more than sufficiently supports *what the Count is*, I have no interest in giving the microphone to any retort, refutation, or other that does not offer up its' own competing Count for me to shatter into pieces.
Everything written so far, supports the notion that the LTCBTC Ratio is 'in a Triangle,' I will now speak directly from the perspective of a potential Triangle Categorization. It bares mentioning that, the lack of a strong case for any other Category of Pattern is, itself, in support of the Pair being in a Triangle.
So, what suggests the LTCBTC Ratio is in a Triangle? The Classification of Sections M1-M3, especially so in M2 and M3, in it of itself, *strongly suggests that the market is currently in a Triangle. First off, aside from Wave E, no leg of a Triangle is permitted to be, itself, a Triangle. The fact that each of the three Sections are not 'themselves' a Triangle, is in alignment with the conclusion of the larger Pattern being 'in a Triangle' (no wave is disqualified from being a leg of a Triangle).
Henceforth, I will largely be referring to these Sections 'Positionally' as Waves or Legs of a Triangle (as Coach used to say: "if you can dream it you can do it"). Wave A (M1) is the first leg of the Triangle. As touched upon, Wave A is a 'Normal' Zig Zag Correction. There is not much to be taken from this other than the fact that a. It is not itself a Triangle and b. The 'Normal' Zig Zag Wave Type will *rarely be the largest leg* of a Triangle, this will come in handy later.
Wave B (M2) is a Truncated Zig Zag. The conclusion that the LTCBTC Ratio is 'in a Triangle,' already has legs (so to speak) in that the Classification of a wave as a Truncated Zig Zag, is a HUGE indication of Triangular activity. An indication which can not be discounted. It also begins to shed light on both what Type of Triangle the Ratio is in, and how far along in it 'we are.' Due to the Power Implications of the Pattern, more specifically, the Counter Trend Strength implied by the weakness of Wave C, a Truncated Zig Zag will *frequently be found preceding the largest leg* of the Triangle. This will also come in handy later, and is already of use in that, due to the bigger picture, we know that is highly unlikely this Truncated Zig Zag is in the Position of Wave A. Thus, by process of elimination, its' Position would have to be Leg B, C, or D. More on this later.
Wave C (M3) is a Triple Zig Zag. Triple Zig Zags are a very rare Pattern, and I quote:
"Triple Zig Zag
This is the most powerful corrective pattern that can occur. If its movement is downward it implies the market is currently very weak. If its movement is upward the market is currently very strong. A Triple Zig Zag will hardly ever be seen but, when it does occur it is usually the longest segment of a Terminal or Triangle. When part of a Terminal pattern, it should definitely be the Extended segment. Based on market position, if a Terminal is not possible, the only choice is that the Triple Zig Zag is the largest Segment of a Triangle. If part of a Flat correction or Contracting Triangle, a Triple Zig Zag can never be completely retraced by the pattern which immediately follows it of the same degree."
Advanced Logic Rules Chapter 10-3
Mastering Elliot Wave by Glen Neely
As I will be dismantling later, the market is not 'in' either a Flat Correction or a Terminal Impulse. In other words, the market is 'in a Triangle,' and the Triple Zig Zag is its' largest Segment! Does it make sense that the largest leg of a Triangle would follow a Truncated Zig Zag?! You tell me. Not only does the conclusion of the LTCBTC Ratio 'being in a Triangle' have some strong legs to stand on, but there is already a strong argument to be made that Sections M1-M3 represent three consecutive, adjacent Legs of a Triangle, and what I will soon show are Waves A, B, and C of a Contracting Triangle.
The LTCBTC Ratio is in a Contracting Triangle:
In having provided the rationale needed to safely conclude that the LTCBTC Ratio is in a some kind of Triangle, the groundwork has now been layed out to further and farther categorize the Pattern. More broadly, a careful and appropriate measurement of the Price and Time taken by each Leg (and/or potential Leg) of the Triangle will be half the battle. More narrowly, Channeling will help build the foundation and seal the deal for this analysis, especially in the later stages. Before the Triangle can be Classified, we must first Categorize it as a Contracting vs Expanding.
With the following statement, the keen reader might begin to notice a pattern forming: Part of what informs the LTCBTC Ratio 'being in a Contracting Triangle' is the ruling out of it 'being in an Expanding Triangle' (This will be covered at Length in Part Two). As it would happen, a careful and thoughtful approach to measuring the 'size' (change in Price) and 'duration' (span of Time) of each Leg (and/or potential Leg) will greatly inform such a Categorization, both directly, and indirectly (in shaping 'how the Triangle might channel'). With foreknowledge that measuring the Duration of each Leg will be fairly straight-forward, and that we must inevitably enter the more 'heated' measuring of the Size of each Leg in Price (keep calm mah babies), I will begin with Time. Then, I will speak to Price *strictly sticking to how it applies to this portion of the post*, and leave any discussion of 'size' for the remaining topics, where its' nuance will be tediously explored. No stone will be left unturned (what, were you expecting something dirty? You guys are a a bunch of sickos.).
Since this portion of the post is dedicated specifically to the Categorization of a Contracting vs Expanding Triangle, I will put forth an important point to consider: Contrary to what this Categorization might imply in other scenarios, on the LTCBTC Ratio Historical Chart, interestingly enough, given the current 'position of the market,' an Expanding Triangle Categorization would actually, by implication, suggest an (on net much more (at a minimum equally)) bullish set of scenarios for the supposed next Leg. With that said, it is not in an Expanding Triangle. So, how does Time and Price usually occur in each of these Categories of Triangle?
In either case, Time and Price are of great significance. In any Triangle, the relevant waves eligible for comparison are essentially all waves that 'move' in the same direction: Waves A, C, and E are compared, and similarly, Waves B and D are compared. It is no surprise that the type of Relationship juan must look for, with respect to Price and Time, in these Legs, is a Fibonacci Relationship. What sets apart the two Categories of Triangle is the frequency these Relationships are found: A Contracting Triangle *must* have at least one Fibonacci Relationship (in Price and/or Time) *in each set* of relevant waves, where as, conversely, an Expanding Triangle is characterized by its' lack of Fibonacci Relationships and can have *at most* one *total (regardless of which set of waves it might be found in).
Next I will present two charts, one of which is focused on Time, the other on Price. The second of the two covers a lot, some of which I have not yet touched on will be explained shortly:
-Price
-Time
Caution: Here is where the post starts to get sophisticated, THE FOLLOWING IS FOR ADVANCED STUDENTS ONLY.
In the second chart, I have began using the Progress Labels A, B, and C which suggest a Position for each Triangle Leg. Categorization aside (for a second), I will first speak to the data shown, and what might be of importance in a Triangle. Like the ealier Charts, these and all future Charts are using the Monthly Time Interval, *on a Log Scale*, using the exchange Bitfinex's historical data. Again, if you take any issue with the use of Log Scale, feel free to watch the hours and hours of video I have done on this, it is without a doubt the correct scale, even on a coin paired against another. There has never been anything more certain in the history of the world. If you really disagree, feel free to wait until the end of the post to hear just how silly you are. Moving on.
Of note Time-wise, is the existence of a Fibonacci Relationship between Legs A and C: Wave C is about 138.2% Times Wave A (37 Months * 1.382 = ~51). This Fibonacci Relationship exists Internally, between the relevant set of waves. We will go much deeper into what type of measurement approach is needed where, and why. Price-wise, Internally, Wave B underwent a ~515% increase in Price, Waves A and C underwent an ~87% and ~91% decrease in Price respectively. There is much to be said about all of this, but for now I will simply note the absence of any Fibonacci Relationship between the relevant waves (Waves A and C) in Price.
What is missing from the story? If you remember, there are five Legs to a Triangle, so, inherent to these Charts are the suggestion that Waves D is *currently in progress* and eventually, after the coming rally, there will be a Wave E to follow. Thus: how the phrase 'being *in* a Triangle' applies to the LTCBTC Ratio. There is still yet much to cover, and necessarily so in a certain order, be patient I will get to it all (believe me I know, it was already written).
-Nas (loose attribution)
Seriously though, I already wrote it all.
LTC/BTC ~ 4-years channelPlan > retest 4-years channel (0,0032-0,0030 = ~ Fib 0,382) and moon
Target > ~ 0,010 - 0,013
Time > ~ 5-8 months (april-july 2023)
P.S. I know in the previous forecast I overestimated the bulls, it's because I thought we still have time before the start of the bear market.
But look how perfectly the channel worked.
I think that we will still test it, as a correction, before the moon.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The first reason is that Bitcoin has not bottomed out. (13,000$ - 10,000$, perfect - 12,000$)
The second is that Litecoin has not bottomed in the USD pair (experience tells me that it is somewhere between $40-25, but if you see $30, don't wait for $25) or has not tested the intermediate bottom ($40).
--------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think the bear will last long, it may take a few days or hours to resolve.
Maybe I'm wrong, and from here we will leave $ 100 or even more, you always need to have a back-up plan.
Keep abreast of the market
LTC/BTC falling wedge formingLitecoin appears to be forming a falling wedge against bitcoin.
Rsi trend has bottomed along with the price action within this wedge.
RSI is showing bullish divergence over the last several weeks.
Volume has been flat or declining in this wedge, often a reversal signal.
This could be as much as a 30% move up to the next resistance area.
This is the product of two potential outcomes.
1. BTC declines while LTC remains flat.
2. LTC gains while BTC price remains flat.
🔥 Attention Litecoin Holders: Convert To BTC While You Can! 🚨If you enjoy this analysis, please give it a like and a follow.
Today is the big day: the third LTC halving will happen in a couple of hours. This means that the rewards from mining will be halved, same as the BTC halving.
Although the LTC halving has been generally a bullish event in the months before the halving, it has always been a bearish event once it has happened. Buy the rumor, sell the news.
As seen on the LTC/BTC chart, it has historically ALWAYS been a better option to convert your LTC to BTC after the halving. In other words, BTC has always outperformed LTC in the months after the halving.
Do with this info what you want. All I know is that Bitcoin will very likely outperform Litecoin for the coming months.
🔥 Litecoin Halving In Two Weeks: Bad News For Holders! 🚨In this analysis I want to take a look at the upcoming LTC halving event and the impact it has on Litecoin's price.
I chose to plot the LTC/BTC chart since it give a perfect view of the relative performance of Litcoin against the top crypto Bitcoin. A rising value means that LTC gains against BTC, and a declining line means that LTC loses value against BTC.
We can deduce a couple of interesting things from this chart.
- The LTC/BTC value always sees some kind of pump in the last 6 months to the halving. Furthermore, the LTC/BTC value tops well before the halving actually takes place.
- After the LTC halving, the LTC/BTC value has (thus far) never continued to increase in value after the halving. Actually, the halving was always the start of a very long bear trend.
Seeing the above, we can assume that the LTC halving will NOT have a positive impact on Litecoin's value against BTC. Sure, LTC can see an increase in value, but BTC will most likely outperform LTC.
Use this info to your advantage. Share your thoughts in the comments 🙏
LTC remains broken out of DECADE-LONG FALLING WEDGE against BTCWe are seeing some historic price action on the epic legendary pair LTC/BTC. Staying cheekily out of the wedge it broke out of.. Litecoin remains poised to FLIP dominance on Bitcoin in 2023. For the first time in its existence next to Bitcoin.
It is a Proof of Work coin which has enjoyed a decade of PRODUCTION use-case, with ZERO network shutdowns. Its a currency coin that just does its job. Will more than likely never be labeled a 'security' because it must be mined as a PoW crypto. In my opinion, highly undervalued. Get in while its still 'obscure'.
As always, for entertainment only. Not financial advice.
Litecoin: Bull Market TargetsWhen CRYPTOCAP:TOTAL and CRYPTOCAP:TOTAL2 enter their bull markets, large capital will look for save havens to increase their purchasing power.
While Bitcoin has proven time and time again to be an amazing hodl after the accumulation phase, it's R:R is reaching diminishing returns.
Major Altcoins that have proven the test of time, like Ethereum and Litecoin, will start to get more attention during these bull markets as a safe place to massively increase purchasing power.
Cross referencing Charlie Lee's Tweet, and the levels he's suggested vs Bitcoin, paint a very logical target for pattern and range traders anyway.
So, post halving - and into any liquidity events (COVID19, FTX Collapse etc as examples) - I will be looking to bag up Litecoin.
LTC Pump is done. Halving is priced in. Recently Crypto markets tend to price in news quite quickly, due to increase in professional traders. LTC Halving is priced in and pump is over. We may get a mini pump at the halving date, but dont count on it.
LTC/BTC Breaking OutLooks like LTC may be breaking out of its decade long descending wedge against BTC. What this could mean is anyone's guess. Personally, I have set up a grid bot on LTC/BTC, with range extending to next fib extension from ATH. Stackin' SATs with Litty.
Its going to be an interesting year.
As always, not financial advice.
LTCBTC Trendline break and RetestLTCBTC pair broken out of trendline and clearly testing it. Very bullish.
LTC/BTC This is just an example of technical analysisIf helps you, please like and share.
#price_action BINANCE:LTCBTC
Compression leads to expansion. LTCBTCI think that 0,01 BTC valuation is very rational and doable at this time of the history.
Compression leads to expansion. I sincerely estimate closer to much higher valuations, some of which can be seen in my previous LTBBTC analysis.
