This is what I'm looking at for bitcoin:native.
The bears are right to point out structural similarities in Bitcoin's trend.
For bullish confirmation, we need to clear this grey box (OB) and start closing daily/weekly candles above it. Until then, the argument is that the trend is your friend.
On the other hand, there are some fundamental differences here.
This recent "range" for bitcoin:native has mainly been met with negative funding. Meaning, for the first time since this downtrend began, the majority of people are leveraged to the short side rather than the long side in terms of open interest.
Market makers and exchanges often work in tandem, as they make the majority of their capital by moving price into areas that close/open contracts: leveraged trading, pools of bids and asks. You have to realise that something here is optically different from the two previous ranges we've seen in this trend.
NB: This is one of the reasons I've been calling for a short squeeze at some point soon.
Additionally, we have the RSI and MACD weekly indicators displaying the same signals they have at 100% of bitcoin:native's previous bottoming ranges. This doesn't mean it's a 100% certainty for the future, but it does mean it certainly shouldn't be overlooked.
Finally, if we look at the historical relationship between $NDX and bitcoin:native, we can see they have been highly correlated throughout recent history. @RaoulGMI explains a 90%+ correlation.
The NASDAQ is at all-time highs, whilst bitcoin:native is still 50% away from ATHs. History suggests this will, at some point, probably soon, return to the norm.
If you're certain on the direction of travel from here because of the four-year cycle and/or technical trading structure, then I think you're being dishonest with yourself. Something here is clearly different.
Does that mean I know what is coming next? No.
Does that mean we can't pull back and range for a while longer? No.
Does it mean there is more going on with this move and potentially the current cycle than previous theories suggest? I'd say yes.
As always, technical analysis isn't a perfect art. It's a game of probability and history referencing to find the most likely path in the future. Take in as much information as you can, create as many reference points as possible, then make your own conclusion. Being lazy here and presuming it's a continual cycle might cost you dearly.
Good luck.
