Thanks for your thoughtful reply — you raise a great point regarding the relationship between wave degree and time duration.

I fully agree that Elliott Wave theory depends heavily on the proportionality between wave degree and time, and I’d like to expand a bit further on my perspective.

What most people miss — and what I’ve come to realize over the years — is that every chart begins with what you don’t see. That’s the real starting point of any wave structure. Let me walk you through how I arrived at this idea.

For years, I’ve studied the oldest available charts across multiple cryptocurrencies — not just Bitcoin, but also Ethereum, Dogecoin, ICON, EOS, and XRP. What stood out to me is that each of these coins starts its visible chart at a different point, yet when you study them side by side, they collectively tell a much deeper story.

That story is this: when applying the Trend-Based Fibonacci Extension, you’ll notice that the true structural beginning always tracks back to 0.00000. That’s not just a technicality — it’s a foundational signal. It implies that we are not just seeing the start of a Primary or Cycle wave — we’re potentially witnessing the early formation of a Grand Supercycle structure.

Let me give some broader historical context, using the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJI):

Supercycle wave 4 was formed around July 1, 1896.

This was followed by the fifth and final wave of the Supercycle, ending in January 1930, with a truncated top — marking the end of Grand Supercycle wave 1.

Grand Supercycle wave 2 bottomed in July 1934.

This creates a clear 1–2 structure at the highest wave degree, which we can use as a reference. I believe something similar is unfolding in BTC — but compressed in time due to technological adoption and asset class maturity.

To zoom in:

BTC since 2011 can be interpreted as a Cycle-degree wave.

We are currently in an extended Primary wave 3 within that structure.

This extended wave behavior is consistent with other historical examples: DJI in the 1920s, or NASDAQ in the late 1990s. And just like those moments in history, it requires stepping back and recognizing the bigger wave in motion — not just the visible highs and lows.

That said, I completely agree: it’s essential to stay flexible and always validate wave degrees with both structure and real market behavior. I truly appreciate feedback and alternate counts — because that’s how we refine our view as a community.

Thanks again for your insights and for continuing the conversation.