https://i.ibb.co/v4Np0VKz/2-5-1400x788.jpg

https://www.elliottwave.com/waveopedia/channeling/

Can W5 override this rule by touching or breaking channel lower band?

Greetings. According to this count primary 2-4 channel has broken. This bothers me. I am considering 15k low might be primary 4. W3 could count somehow imo.

This is like a man cave and people don't come here and try to look how enthusiastic what this elliott wave's show. I've seen some real life elliott wave traders and they're also bullish for Bitcoin. Looking at that with the projection of potentially getting $500k early 2026, it's still possible. So we're on the 4th wave already and waiting for the 5th one to reach.

That would indicate the bear market if ever it goes back to $50k.

Are fractals of any use in Elliot?

https://i.postimg.cc/xTrT2XcF/Selecci-n-062.jpg

You've been waiting for BTC to fall to $50k for over a year, with or without an irregular flat.

And your only mention of a bullish alternative count is:
"that the bearish option will be invalidated above $114k."

This isn't Elliott, this is your bearish thread.

The norm in Elliott, especially in long-term terms, is to have two alternatives, one bullish and one bearish.

You've been using only one for a year: going for $50k.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5485551.msg64037630#msg64037630

I wonder why you keep insisting on the bearish option.
And of course, the situation in Iran serves as an excuse for you to think that what you've been waiting for a year will finally happen.
According to you, the $114k is the key to everything. It will be the key to whether your bearish option expires, or, as always happens with Elliott, there is another option, which you have been timidly pushing into the background for many months.
Where you see a potential crisis due to the US bombing, others may see a play that the market has taken advantage of to liquidate longs and thus continue rising.
The $114k is the key.
Will we finally see a bullish option in this thread???

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.

....
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.
....

@xxxx123abcxxxx, I've been following you for a while now and I truly admire your work! I've also been working with Elliott Wave analysis for some time, and I believe there are a few points where the wave count might be off.

In my view, we're still within the first major wave, and currently in an extended wave 3. The initial (sub)wave 1 began in July 2011 at $15, followed by a corrective wave 2 — in line with the rule of alternation. This should eventually develop into a complex wave 3 and 4, after which wave 5 will complete the third wave within the first major wave.

See my projections: BTC and DJI

After that, I expect a prolonged cooling-off period in the market. If we look at the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJI) starting in 1896, according to my analysis that was only wave 4 of the first major wave. Wave 5 wasn't completed until 32 years later, in July 1929. What followed was a corrective phase that lasted 32.8 years.

I believe we're entering a similar phase again — and that includes the DJI as well.

@xxxx123abcxxxx. Does that imply that elliot wave experts are no better traders than trendlines experts? I reckon traders who will choose one of these methods will both of them not have an accurate prediction. We can also be quite certain that other traders who are using different methods would also not have an accurate prediction.

Also, we have a similar assessment that the market will dump lower, however, to dump on $50k is very headshaking. This is very low. We can be quite certain that many investors who are waiting to buy more bitcoin will buy before it dumps to this price.

This is the trendline that I have been observing. Can you also draw an elliot waves for this?

https://imgvb.com/images/2025/05/27/613517adc370afe7941a0b66f92e7a20.jpg

My question is on this elliot waves. Will this always depend on what the market is doing presently or are these predictions real predictions where it can say where or what the market will do on the next 6 months?

If the expert eliot waves predictors change their predictions depending on what might presently occur on the market, can they declare always that the elliot waves really is a good market indicator?

However, this is my question. If bitcoin does not breakout beyond $114k within 2 months, you are predicting that it is a certainty that it will dump to $50k again or will the predictions change depending on the chart again?

If predictions chance depending on the chart again, I reckon these are not real predictions that can be used for trading bitcoin.

You've spent a year insisting on the bearish scenario with the irregular flat.
Finally, a year later, you have a bullish alternative count.

What I don't understand is why, for a year now, you haven't considered both scenarios, bearish and bullish.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5485551.msg64106795#msg64106795

So down we go to $60k-ish?!

What if that was the cycle top?

I noticed a little error in the labelling because for the Elliot Wave principle to hold, one of the requirements is that wave 3 must not be the shortest wave. In the labelling, both wave 1 and the projected wave 5 of the primary wave are longer than motive wave 3 which invalidates the entire thing. This is the reason I don't believe that projection of an ATH of $379 in 2026. Maybe if the EW is recounted, then we will be able to see a different view and draw a different conclusion. It is increasingly becoming difficult to know what the ATH of this market cycle will be given the reluctance of the market to proceed despite that everything that would have added momentum to the market has already happened.

you show a ATH in late 2025 of $219k(3?) and then another ATH in 2026 of $379k(5?)..hmm seems your estimated timings are off
i dont see a extra ATH happening in 2026(5?) as there were no ATH in pattern of 2022, 2018, 2014,
the years 2022,2018,2014 were the low seasons. so 2026 would be a low, not a new ATH

also i feel the $379k might be the top test of late 2025 ATH