You said pun....and then you start using again the word capitulation 3 times.... 
No, it was not what math calculated, don't bring math into this.
It was what you got from forcing math formulas with no basis.
If you pick your timesets as you see fit you can come up with really amazing facts, let's have an example...
Bitcoin will NEVER REACH 100K /BTC.
And I can prove it with hashrate, furthermore, I will avoid the first years with the dramatic price increase and the years with no asic mining.
On the 1st of January 2015, we had a price of 750$ and a hashrate of 11PH.
On the 1st January 2020, we're sitting at 7000$ and a hashrate of 90 EH.
That's a growth of 10x in price and 9000x in hash rate.
So, using math to reach 100k we need an increase of ~15k times in hahrate...
That's math!!!!
Again, using math...
Assuming the new generation5nm miners with claims of 25% increase in efficiency Bitmain and Cannan claim , screw that just for fun lets go to 1nm miners we will get around 1PH per miner at 3000W. But! we need 1,3 billions of them!
That is going to be 72kwh x 365 x 1 300 000 000, or 34,164,000,000,000 kwh or 34,164 Twh or 1.5 times what the world is consuming at a cost of 2.6 trillion in equipment but....with a remaining reward of only 300 billion coins (at 100k value)
You see....math!
Just how you chose arbitrarily points for your TA I did the same and I've proved with math, that it won't be possible for BTC to reach 100k.
So, hash and price...nope!!!
Just like brand new car sales don't drive wages up but are an effect of them.
Stop trying to see things where there is nothing to see, you might end up with a pink Rolls Royce
and that's not a good thing, trust me!
To correct you, the indicator claimed there was capitulation (which I agree with), given the historical relevance of this indicator for 9 years. Bare in mind there was also 'minor' "miner capitulation" three times in 2015. Arguably, you could say if it's minor capitulation it's merely a correction, and you'd be right, however I am referencing the indicator here rather than my own personal bias or perspective, that isn't relevant. The importance right now is that the recent correction/capitulation was very limited and short-lived, and therefore has reflected the 2015 corrections that occurred during accumulation.
Don't credit me, credit the indicator. I am just publishing what the mathematics have calculated 
No, it was not what math calculated, don't bring math into this.
It was what you got from forcing math formulas with no basis.
If you pick your timesets as you see fit you can come up with really amazing facts, let's have an example...
Bitcoin will NEVER REACH 100K /BTC.
And I can prove it with hashrate, furthermore, I will avoid the first years with the dramatic price increase and the years with no asic mining.
On the 1st of January 2015, we had a price of 750$ and a hashrate of 11PH.
On the 1st January 2020, we're sitting at 7000$ and a hashrate of 90 EH.
That's a growth of 10x in price and 9000x in hash rate.
So, using math to reach 100k we need an increase of ~15k times in hahrate...
That's math!!!!
Again, using math...
Assuming the new generation
That is going to be 72kwh x 365 x 1 300 000 000, or 34,164,000,000,000 kwh or 34,164 Twh or 1.5 times what the world is consuming at a cost of 2.6 trillion in equipment but....with a remaining reward of only 300 billion coins (at 100k value)
You see....math!
Just how you chose arbitrarily points for your TA I did the same and I've proved with math, that it won't be possible for BTC to reach 100k.
So, hash and price...nope!!!
Just like brand new car sales don't drive wages up but are an effect of them.
Stop trying to see things where there is nothing to see, you might end up with a pink Rolls Royce
and that's not a good thing, trust me!