Thanks for your thoughtful response — you raise a very good point about the relationship between wave degree and duration within Elliott Wave analysis.

I completely agree that correctly assigning wave degrees requires consideration of time frames. But I’d like to offer some additional context based on my own research and experience.One thing I’ve learned over the years is this: every chart starts with what you don’t see. That hidden beginning is often more important than the visible part we analyze.

Let me explain.
I’ve spent years studying the earliest available price charts of multiple crypto assets — not just Bitcoin, but also Ethereum, Dogecoin, ICON, EOS, and XRP. One thing that stood out to me is how each of these assets starts at different times with different early structures. But taken together, they seem to tell a collective story — a hidden symmetry in their early movements.

That led me to an interesting observation:
When you apply the Trend-Based Fibonacci Extension tool, the starting point often appears to be 0.00000. Let me be clear: I’m not suggesting that any asset literally traded at zero. I'm fully aware that no asset — whether it’s gold, oil, bitcoin, or the Dow Jones — has ever had a real market value of 0.00000.

Here are a few facts to clarify that:

• Bitcoin, at launch in January 2009, technically had no market price. It was mined for free. Once a market was established, the first recorded price was around $0.00099 (about 1/10 of a cent).
• The Dow Jones Industrial Average launched at 40.94 points on May 26, 1896, and hit its lowest closing value at 28.48 points on August 8 of the same year.

So when I refer to “0.00000,” I’m not talking about a historical fact — it’s a tool-based construct within technical analysis. It represents a theoretical origin — the visual zero — which Fibonacci extensions often use to define trend relationships. And understanding that “invisible start” helps interpret what’s coming next.

That being said, I want to make something very clear:
This is simply how I see it. I’m not trying to convince anyone. This method just works really well for me personally, and I’m sharing it in case it resonates with others — nothing more, nothing less.

Looking at it from that perspective, we may be seeing not just Primary or Cycle-degree waves, but possibly the early stages of a Grand Supercycle — especially with Bitcoin, where exponential growth and early-stage adoption can distort our perception of wave proportions.

This also connects with historical cycles in the Dow Jones:

• The Supercycle wave 4 was formed around July 1896.
• The fifth and final wave of that cycle peaked in early 1930 — a truncated top, marking the end of Grand Supercycle wave 1.
• Wave 2 (the correction) bottomed out in July 1934.

That creates a 1–2 structure at the highest wave degree, and I believe we’re seeing something similar unfolding in BTC — albeit over a compressed timeframe due to rapid technological acceleration.

Zooming in further:

• BTC from 2011 onward appears to be part of a Cycle-degree wave,
• I believe we’re currently in an extended Primary wave 3
• mirrors past cycles like the Dow in the 1920s or the NASDAQ in the late 1990s.

As with those historical cases, the key is to zoom out, avoid getting fixated on surface-level moves, and stay open to the idea that we might be part of a much larger unfolding structure.
That said, I completely agree with your point: flexibility, constant re-evaluation, and a strong understanding of wave structure and duration are essential. Thoughtful feedback like yours helps refine these counts — and strengthens the community as a whole.

Thanks again for engaging with the idea. I genuinely appreciate it.