I'm BULLISH. However I'm one of those oldfags (from 2017 in this case) who've been saying for four years BTC will bottom out at 10k and I'm still saying it will (obviously, as the 1D CME gap at 9.7k is still unfilled - there's also a 1D gap at 20k, and no; the tiny 3.5k gap is just on the Hourly chart hence it's not getting filled), so I'm a bear on the longer timescale. On the even longer timescale (after that bottom) I'm of course bullish; I predict a very healthy bullrun after that period of maximum pain – max pain, max gain. Anyway I've done some proper – unbiased, high-quality, high-intelligence – analysis of the chart; clearly BTC hasn't topped yet. I'll give you some rough estimates. It will top out between 115k and 165k. To narrow it down more, between 125k and 145k seems more likely. Note that if BTC is going for a 160k-ish top, that likely won't happen until 2026. A 140k-ish top can happen this year before the end of summer. If it will be a 130k-ish top, that'll likely happen in February or March this year.So all you bears thinking 108k was the top and it's down from here, you're in for some disappointment. And bulls expecting a 2025 top of 250k or 300k or whatever jews and nigger rappers have told you (they said that would happen in 2024), you're in for even greater disappointment.
>>59595821>intelligent enough to recognize the top is not yet in>intelligent enough to give realistic targets>still thinks we will print a lower low as bottomwhat do you call this?
>>59595821you spent the entirety of the bear spamming your laughable 10K target with warosu links and got completely left out you were bearish at 15K and you're now bullish at 100K lmfao why the fuck would anyone give a shit what you have to say
>>59595856Looks like a good counter indicator
>>59595821200k is definitely doable maybe 250 even as last cycle was held back. I definitely agree we're going down to 10k and maybe even 4k as I believe all these four year cycles were just part of a bitcoin supercycle which will occur every 20 years or so and this particular super cycle top will coincide with the US macro top. Then the next super top will probably coincide with whatever the next economically relevant thing is in the next 20 years, but by then I don't even think the us stock market will reach new aths.
>>59595835The word Based comes to mind.
>>59595821wait you shit we gonna go to 200k+ then correct 95% to 10 FUCKING K?lmao why would even whales let it happen? The total meltdown capitulation will be 30-40k no less. There will be tards with lots of liquidity like saylor to buy it all. not that it's too big too fail, but BTC is too seriously considered now
>>59596002>last cycle was held backlmao because of "muh ftx"?
>>59595821I will always remind TA grifters such as yourself, Traders Reality and Richard Heart that you got it wrong about $10k. I've been in this game longer than you, you probably came here in 2017 and are what we actual oldfags call the original summerfags of 2017. You know, and I know, that all TA influencers are complete grifters.For me the peak of the bullrun will happen sometime between late summer and autumn of this year. I give little chance to it extending beyond 2025. I'm calling it 140-160k, with an outside chance of it hitting 180k.
>>59595856>hi guys im super new so i think 10k is a recent thingWay to out yourself. We've been saying Bitcoin will bottom around 10k since before even the 65k April top in 2021, before /that/ bear market even started. It's totally unrelated to the 69k>15.5k bear market.
>>59596919But why has /biz/ forecasted 10k for longer than 2 bear markets ago? Why did /biz/ forecast a dump to 10k before the 2020-2021 bullrun to 65k had even finished? Why is /biz/ so sure all this time about 10k specifically? Why did it become the primary /biz/ target?
>>59597036It's all due to the gap that formed there on the CME chart in July 2020. It's just beneath 10k, closer to 10k than 9k so we say 10k for simplicity's sake.
>>59596095Posts like yours are immensely bearish. Reminds me of the "btc cant move below x because miner cost" cope that always precedes that very move happening, or the "it cant crash to x price because everyone would be buying, i would sell my house to buy, bla bla" that also precedes BTC reaching the very lows the poster says arent happening.
There's an unfilled CME gap at $3500.CME gaps ALWAYS get filled.
>>59597193Protip: Forget about the 3.5k gap – it's fun to shitpost about like that, but (for anyone else reading this, who doesn't know) it's meaningless. Like stated in the OP text, it's a tiny gap and it's on the hourly chart – not something to pay attention to. When people speak of CME gaps getting filled we're referring to 1D gaps. Picrel for instance showcases the 18k gap and the more recent 20k one; both 1D gaps. You can also see other gaps that later filled – shows clearly how this stuff works; it's an excellent pic! The closest and most recent gap right now is the one at ~79k. It might get filled and THEN the price goes up above 108k, or the price might first go above 108k (to any of the tops mentioned in the OP text) and THEN later it gets filled on the way down. But it will get filled. Only a matter of time. A question of when, not if. If the market goes to fill the ~79k gap from here though, that would just be a tiny pointless dump; nothing to freak out about, nothing to celebrate. It would be a bear trap.
>>59597094>>59597193explain what a CME gap is and WHY it should be filled. I'm tired of this meme.
>>59597427is it just the "gap" between the CME that closes every night and the 24/7 markets?
>>59595821So you're retarded, got it
>>59597427I'm OP btw.And 3.5k is unrealistically low. It's not outright impossible BTC may go that low, but it's extremely unlikely. The likeliest lowest bottom we will ever see again is somewhere in the 8k range or a dip for like 5 minutes into 7900 or something like that. I don't think we will remain in the high 9k range for long, for that matter, either – once its below 10k it will quickly bounce hard. For 3.5k some extreme event would need to happen while the price is already in the 10k/9k range, like maybe nuclear war (I'm not a fan of the happenings-cause-the-price to-go-up/down mentality as it's usually just coincidences or it's price movements getting blamed on happenings; blamed by either the whales who are initiating the pump/dump, or blamed by retards who can't look at a chart to understand the state of the market and then a happening occurs and they automatically associate the happening with the price changing) but such an extreme scenario could perhaps cause the price to go lower.
>>59597484What do you see btc hitting during the 2028-2029 cycle?
Only way 3.5k-10k ever gets reached will be through a few second mega scam wick downwards to flush out someone like Saylor in the depths of a global depression.
>>59595821you gap faggots are retards, bitcoin is a 24 hr market nobody cares about some exchange with restricted trading hours or whatever
>>59595821>And bulls expecting a 2025 top of 250k or 300kDo you think 250k-300k can be hit during the 2028-2029 cycle at least?
>>59595835>pretending they have any sort of idea of what's going to happen
>>59595821>obviously, as the 1D CME gap at 9.7k is still unfilled>>59597170Imagine being so low IQ though. CME gaps tend to get "filled" because a price moves in a random walk most of the time, statistically "filling" any zone. I guarantee you that some "gaps" never got filled in history, especially when market enters a stronger trend reducing the randomness of the price walk.BTC could go to $1, technically, sure. But historically it has never done it, why would it now that so much of wall street money is in it? Only black swan and a similar -60% stock crash could bring us a 10k btc. If some quantum hack moves all of satoshi BTC to Binance, then ok. But it's not even what you are saying.
To recap, either CME gaps theory 1) is just another self fulfilling prophecy, at worst it's 2) bullshit that rarely happens. You are posting here & massively everywhere because YOU WANT IT TO HAPPEN. Because you are sidelined
>>59597728>nobody cares about the gapsHistory has conclusively demonstrated that the market as a whole, as an entity in of itself, does. Mr. Market cares. That's precisely why we take CME gaps so seriously. By the way Mr. Market cares regardless if you do or not and regardless of your feelings. Just so you know.
Isnt the break even price for miners like BTC at atleast 35k now. 10k BTC seems very very unrealistic
>Temps tend to "rise" because the sun moves in a random walk most of the time, statistically "warming" any zone. I guarantee you that some "springs" never got warmed in history, especially when sun enters a stronger trend reducing the randomness of the sun walk. Temps could go to over 9000 C, technically, sure. But historically it has never done it, why would it now that so much of NASA telescopes are directed at the sun? Only aliens and a similar +60% dark energy could bring us 10 C temps. If some spooky action moves all photons to the Moon, then ok. But it's not even what you are saying.>Either temps rising during spring theory 1) is just another self fulfilling prophecy, at worst it's 2) bullshit that rarely happens. You are posting here & massively everywhere because YOU WANT IT TO HAPPEN. Because you are freezing
>>59597839google says only 65% of gaps get filled and OP is a gay bear.
>>59595821Sell it off
