"The Life of Bitcoin: The Definitive Historical Count Pt. 5"

14 de jul. de 2024

Table of Contents

1. Introduction: "The Life of Bitcoin: The Definitive Historical Count Pt. 5"

2. The Flavor of the Times: "Segments 5 and 6: Saylor breaks the buck--how one man blew the bubble in Bitcoin"

3. Segments 5 and 6 Analysis
A. Segment 5 Analysis
B. Segment 6 Analysis

4. Further clarified and newly developed concepts in Wave Theory
A. The Base Level Complexity of Triangles and Terminals.
B. Wave-Particality: The Phenomenan of Multi-ended Waves."
C. Trans-structured and Multi-structured Waves
D. Abnormal Triangles

5. The Holy Grail: Bitcoin's Multi-ended, Abnormal Triangle Wave Z.
A. Revisiting the cryptic 3D 'great pyramids' chart
B. The key to the Holy Grail: 'The Immaculate False Break' and The Complexity Level of the Historical Count

6. The Grand Finale: Overtime Settled
A. Thrust Post-Constructive Logic: Thrust Degree, Thrust Type, and Settlement.
B. Why approaches A and B are even less relevant in the Wave Z Abnormal Triangle.

7. Addendum: Additional Related Content (Honorable Mention)

A. Disclaimer
B. Real Time Analysis (Speed Chess Pt. 1)
C. Real Time Analysis (Speed Chess Pt. 2)
D. Count Distinction, Adjustment, and Evolution (formerly Section 5)


1. Introduction:

This is Part 5 (the grand finale) of my epic series breaking down every major, relevant Segment in Bitcoins' price history, and explaining how they fit into the 'Historical Elliot Wave Count.' To understand what this series of posts is all about, as well as the specific analysis of the first three Segments covered, see parts 1-4:


"The Life of Bitcoin: The definitive Historical Count Pt.1"

"The Life of Bitcoin: The definitive Historical Count Pt.2"

"The Life of Bitcoin: The definitive Historical Count Pt.3"

"The Life of Bitcoin: The definitive Historical Count Pt.4"

In short, what my 'Historical Count' implies is nothing less than astonishing: Essentially Bitcoin has just completed a decade long, (Running Triple Three) Wave 2 Correction and is now in an extremely powerful Wave 3 that should take the price to over 10 Million $ per coin, with the bulk of this appreciation (if not all) occurring within the next 5-10 years. See my published chart (which preceded the series) to view what the massive, Wave 2 Correction looks like when zoomed out, as well as a bit of the rationale that supports this Count:


Snapshot


Published Chart

And now...for the grand finale of the series.



2. Flavor of the Times:

Title for Segments 5 and 6: Saylor breaks the buck--how one man blew the bubble in Bitcoin

Can you feel the buzz in the air? Emerging victorious from yet another rendition of Bitcoins' cyclical, bear market culling, the 'cyber hornets' were back, and in full force. Having withstood the initial shock of the drop, and succesfully shaken-off the 'Corona' taken-off (the flash-crash lows), the Bitcoin faithful stood ready to dance like a butterfly and sting like a bee. In surviving a rope-a-dope of their own, sure, they might have had the Dollar on the ropes, but the Bitcoin Yogi Bears still loomed, hanging on by a thread to their muted, fiat, fat lady. And until it was all officially over, a single question remained: Who would deliver the knockout blow?

To cover the 'flavor of the times' without dedicating the Lions' share to the man, the myth, and the legend of Michael Saylor, would be blasphemy. Bitcoin, the first fully-decentralized cryptocurrency, was always, by design, leaderless. It lacked a marketing team that was resourced well enough to compete with the PR departments of big banks and major corporations. The cypher-punk ethos born of the early days, and instilled in each successive generation of hodlers, did not take kindly to new faces, at least not without sniffing around a bit for statist agendas.

Afterall, it was this very ethos that had shaped the project, helping to attract just the right mix of developers, mostly of a particular bent, who would go on to take the reigns from Satoshi Nakamoto, its mysterious inventor. Such an environment would eventually breed the ever-present 'Andreas the great,' a man articulate enough to translate the latest developments (and/or debates) in the field, converting them into digestible bite-sized nuggets of clarity, consumable by audiences of all kinds.

But Bitcoin is much more than just Computer Science, it merges numerous disciplines which, each in there own right, might require a life-time to master. As far as the Finance aspect of it all, most of the early 'money guys' were too busy building out the infrastructure (exchanges, payment-providers, investment vehicles, etc.,) to be prosthylatising the 'good word.' This period in Bitcoin was characterized by drug busts, immature software, major hacks, and a lack of cohesion regarding the future of the project. There were hardly any podcasts to go on, and, at this point in time, the fledgeling, peer to peer currency was not ready for the spotlight anyway.

Bitcoin market cycles often produce ancillary cycles in other areas, such as content creation. Digital hoods come and go, modes of communication change, social networks rise and fall, and the demand for content ebbs and flows. Segment 3 opened up the floodgates for 'Crypto-podcasting,' whereas Segment 4, naturally, brought about an oversaturated market (the downtrend in prices bursted the bubble for attention). In Segment 5, the market carnage was now in the rearview mirror. In typical Bitcoin fashion, prices began to rip higher, optimism resurfaced, and the demand for content gradually flowed back into the space: The cream of the Crypto-podcasting crop was established, whereas the 'bandwagon groupies,' had fallen by the waist side, and a proper balance had been struck.

So, what I am getting at, is that in many regards, Michael Saylor (or 'Saylor,' be stated as one word, like 'Prince') was the first of his kind. To the swarm, any high networth individual arriving on the scene with even a shred of understanding of what Bitcoin is, and what it's all about, was a pleasent surprise. Sure, many had 'gotten in' before, yet, none had gotten *it like he had, not even close.

Saylor, was leagues above, abandoning all prior, tamed attempts at catering to 'the nest' by speaking as to what Bitcoin might, one day become, he proceeded to dish out one zinger after the next, embracing the fact that Bitcoin IS. T'was as if the man had died and lived again, now on a mission to reveal the secrets Satoshi-son had so gratiously armed him with. Clearly a scholar in the history of money, Saylor jumped in with both feet, fervently shooting out memes from the hip, daucing the crowd with a fresh grail of 'incorruptable substance' taken straight from Satoshi's Laziryth Pit, igniting wildfires of passion.

It's tough to succinctly describe the vibes emenating from the catalyst known as Saylor, but I will take a shot: It was like watching one of those old church telethons you might find on Cable TV at four in the morning, only, if you, the reverend, AND the audience were all on acid, and the more excited you all got about Bitcoin, the more free money that would come in.

To say that Saylor didn't just talk the talk, but also walked the walk, would be the understatement of a century. In what can only be described as spiritual, fifth-dimensional art of war, we would soon learn that Saylor had not rushed into Bitcoin by any means, but rather, he had been quietly, dilligently, and astutely researching it, all the while packing the trunk, only to arrive on the scene locked and loaded, ready to rally the troops, and then proceed to again hit the nascent, illiquid market with yet more buying power, perhaps more than it had ever experienced (at least from one dude). So you see, Saylor saw the game with different i's, bringing his own unique Game Theory to the table.

And it was all too fitting for the innovation built on Game Theory, Bitcoin, to be overtaken by a world-class, Grand Master. In certain circles, there are some things you just don't do in the market, largely unspoken things. And then, there are certain things you just don't do in the Bitcoin market, who's main use case is obliterating the 'old money' ...literally, and in all senses. But no, Saylor didn't quite see it that way: It wasn't about 'gaining exposure' in case this thing takes off, he wanted all.of.the.bitcoin. And more.

As it would happen, the fiat, fractional reserve banking system, is built entirely on Credit. A fact that was, apparently, not lost on Saylor, which makes sense considering the structure of it all: In short, the more money you have, the more money you are entitled to borrow. So, for a Billionaire, that comes out to, well, ehrm, carry the four, a lot of money. And so it was.

Saylor was not just early, he was more than early, and this was not his first rodeo. Having had to sit on his hands and watch the prior run up in prices, when the market finally corrected, he was ready to go, soaking up all supply available for sale at firesale prices. Underappreciated by most, is how this would all fit into his larger strategy, and to grasp this, you must put yourself in the shoes of a High Networth Individual. Now, let's hop into the time machine and travel back to the year 2020...you are a HNWI looking to buy lots of Bitcoin as it is approaching and breaking the former all time high, what would YOU be worried about? Well, who are the biggest threat to HNWI's? That's easy: Other HNWI's.

In other words, what you don't want to happen is for the other HNWI's who bought into the bear market--to distribute their coins to you--all throughout your establishing a Position. Get it? Saylor knows it was Saylor buying, so there is no one (barring coins that have not moved in a very long time) to sell to him at those prices. The significance of this knowledge as a HNWI can not be understated.

Is it starting to make sense why it was so easy for him to, not just buy at those prices (and higher), but to do so on credit. Who would bully him around in the market? By that point he owns the entire market. There is an old saying on Wall Street: 'Buy the rumor, Sell the news.' Saylors' soaking up the market created the rumor, but there was no one capable of selling the news! So instead, his actions created the rumor, and he bought the news, creating more rumors, and news for him to buy. Him buying literally became the news. Week after week, "MicroStrategies, a public company, announced they bought more bitcoin today" prompting more buying and forcing the hand of others to follow.

But of course, 'this could not stand' and 'something had to be done' whispered those who enforce (or at least used to) the unspoken rules of the market. But there was a problem, they hadn't seen him coming. It was all just too fast, and the CBDC's were not ready. So what is a 'master of the universe' to do? Can't exactly do the whole ripple thing again, **ruffles through the 'master of the universe' playbook**, ahhh yes, I've got it, throw it all at Ethereum. Alas, the latest rendition of 'Weekend at Ethereums' was conjured up. But the damn thing just wouldn't 'stick.'

And so...the plot thickened: Fight fire with fire! Right? Enter Elon and Tesla. On the surface, it would appear 'the masters of the universe' had selected their champion: Yet another Billionaire to compete for the ever-diminishing, floating supply of Bitcoin, and one who was not subject to the same rules as all the other geriatrics (such as pumping tiny coins like Doge into the stratosphere, etc). So, from the old geisers point of view, the reenforcements had been called in, and the battle to (in theory) gradually take back control over the chaotic market had begun.

But, as my tagline goes, 'here's the thing:' All is not so simple in Love and War. Teslas' purchases marked the dawn of a new era, whereby Public Companies began allocating portions of their Balance Sheet into buying and holding Bitcoin for the long term. A significant milestone for the fledgeling currency that had, not much earlier, inspired public commitments to eat one's own genitals should the price not reach a certain point. Tesla 'getting in' was a big deal, inspiring authors such as yours truly to question who would be next to follow suit. Yet, with the price having appreciated from the bear market lows of around 4K, to over 65K in what seemed like the blink of an eye, the momentum of the trend ever so subtly began to subside. And no one followed suit, at least not quick or veraciously enough.

Deep down in the reccesses of Tradingview, the first 'bad apples' (us here at LARPCapital) infamously published our bearish take on the market:


"The Big Short Brought to You by LARP Capital"

And of course, as always, the evil 'bears' were derided for the mere consideration the market could, at a minumum, use a breather.

And then, after what felt like an eternity (at least for yours truly), yet was not actually much longer, IT happened: It turns out, the only other dude in the world 'really' buying bitcoin, realized he was the only other dude in the world 'really' buying bitcoin. So, it was only logical to want to 'test the liquidity of the market.'

And so, the same assurance Saylor had had all the way up, was now gone...it was not so lonely out there buying at 3x,xxx, 4x,xxx, and 5x,xxx. Question: Still think I have it all wrong?

Now of course, I am being a tad hyperbolic in claiming they were the only ones buying, there were plenty of others buying in the ranges mentioned above, most of whom can be found by reviewing the financial outlets covering their collapses on the way down. But fear not, there was at least one up and coming hot, new crypto exchange publicly assuring the market they were on hand and ready to bail out all of the terrific companies that went under. Enter FTX.

For the sake of brevity, I will summarize a few major events that occurred thereafter. FTX, the latest and greatest rendition of 'crypto market ascension' within the US (by way of NYDFS inbreeding), assured the latest batch of wealthy Bitcoin 'community members' that they were ready, willing, and able to 'bail out' fellow, ehrr other, victims of the carnage. The 'market' was relieved, and a new plan was put into place to help mitigate the losses: Ya ETFs are cool, but check this, how about a Bitcoin Futures ETF!? Mog, oddly, at the time (to the cryptotwitter ackolytes) such a product sounded like the beez kneez, the greatest thing since sliced bread, the welcome mat for 'institutional moniez' ...if you will. And 'the market' sure did agree, at least for the time being, and strangely, prior to the time being. Though, for yours truly, something didn't seem quite right...we'll get to that.

'Here's the thing,' it wasn't just this monumental milestone for the industry in the form of a *whimpers* ?Futures-based ETF?, if you can believe it, there was even more: Another spouse, ehr, sibling, was.going.public. Coinbase, one of the oldest US Bitcoin brokerages, ehr, exchanges, had officially opened their doors to the retail, investing public. Oh, I mentioned that something didn't seem right here:


"Wall Street gets into (out of) Bitcoin"

-Snapshot published in "Still Bearish Dre Bitcoin Update" (shown later)


So, as it would happen, all of that 'totally natural' buying, which definitely wasn't a couple of market makers painting the tape so their buddies could exit at the top--salvaging whatever they could from their ponzi-ehr, fractional res-ehr, 'compliance-based Bitcoin Exchanges,' would ALL GET WIPED OUT in the months and years to follow. Just slow enough to ensure optimal exiting for all spouses and siblings. Oh, ya, I got that one too:


Still Bearish Dre
"LARP Capital Still Bearish Dre Bitcoin update"

Must have been a lucky guess. Go ahead and press play on that juan to find out wot happened to the dinasours. Welp, hopefully you got your fill of flavor for this post, I know THEY did...

------------------------------------------

3. Segments 5 and 6 Analysis


A. Segment 5 Analysis:

Chart Snapshots


-Chart A, Wave Type: Double Zig Zag



-Chart B, Wave Type: Double Zig Zag (Sub-waves)



-Chart C, Complexity Levels



-Chart D, Time and Post-Constructive Logic



B. Segment 6 Analysis

Chart Snapshots


-Chart A, Wave Type: Abnormal Triangle



-Chart B, Wave Type (Sub-waves):
Abnormal Triangle



-Chart C, Complexity
Abnormal Triangle



4. Further clarified and newly developed concepts in Wave Theory

Reader be advised: If you have not read the general disclaimer (found within Section 7 and in every other Part of this Series) any comments on this Post will be ignored. Most of the material in this Section is not *explicitly* mentioned in the book:

"Mastering Elliot Wave"
'Presenting the Neely Method: The First Scientific, Objective Approach to Market Forecasting with the Elliot Wave Theory' by Glen Neely with Eric Hall

Thus, why it was neccessary to fill in the gaps with my own clarifications, newly developed concepts, and language. As I have mentioned, many of these ideas are hinted at within the book, if one only knew how to read for subtext. There are a few, however, which are completely left out (such as topic B). I contend that any gaps I have filled in, are totally rooted in the same Logic Neely has layed out in his world-renound book (referenced above).

My building upon his foundational Logic is based around the conceptualization of all market behavior as fitting within three main categories: Waves, Wave Patterns, and Counts. Moreover, it is through this lens that we can eXtend any Logic (or 'Sub-Logic') applied from one of the above categories to any other. Lastly, a constant theme embedded in this Logic is in the acknowledgement that any particular truth within Wave Theory need not (and usually should not) be taken as absolutely.


A. The Base Level Complexity of Triangles and Terminals.

Complexity Levels are a topic I have spoken about at length in many of my past charts, lectures, and videos. To be frank, if not properly understood for what they are, they are much less important than the other key tenets of Counting waves. As it should happen, Glen Neely's book fails to mention how the Complexity Levels of a Triangle or a Terminal Impulse should be determined. Yet, by imploying the same Logic he does, we can extend the concept further and farther as to cover these two Patterns.

For the purpose of this post, I will cover the basic heuristics used in evaluating the Complexity Level of a Pattern, as opposed to going deep into other, related categories of waves (such as Monowaves, Polywaves, Multiwaves, etc). Let's begin with what the book does tell us, and work from there. What Neely's book does indeed tell us is how to evaluate the Complexity of all other Patterns, such as each type of Impulse, Standard Correction, and Non Standard Correction.

There are a couple of common heuristics applicable to all other Patterns, which I will briefly mention to give a taste of the logic at play, though it is largely a Pattern-specific technique. Complexity Levels are inseperably intertwined with what you might call 'the paradox of Elliot Wave.' That is to say, determining the Complexity Level of a given sub-wave, allows for the deriving of a Complexity Level of a larger Pattern. To be clear, I used the word paradox for a reason: A bottom-up flow of analysis is no more or no less valid than a top-down flow of analysis: In truth, both are needed, neither should be ignored, and all effects all...such is yinyan of the juanwai.

'Subdivisions' are some-what 'attached at the hip' to the Complexity Level of a given Pattern. Ideally, some marginal information is gleemed as to whether or not a wave might be integrated into a larger Pattern or Count. The overarching rule of thumb is that adjacent waves can not be more than one complexity level removed from each other. The idea is that 'like' should be grouped with 'like', or else something might be off with your interpretation, at least from a Complexity Level standpoint. As I have said many times before, learn it, understand it, incorporate it, but beware of the dangers of such rigidity. This rigidity, absent a proper amending and clarifying of the Topic, some of which I will
be revealing here, might prevent you from finding the best Count! As the juan know, THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH EVERY COUNT. But I digress.

When analyzing a Pattern on any chart to determine its' Complexity Level, the first question usually asked is: Does it subdivide? The second question asked is: What type of Pattern is it? The first question addresses the 'base level' complexity of the Pattern, in other words, it provides a starting point. The second question informs how you will proceed further, as there are Pattern-specific nuances to be adhered to.

In addition to these two, general commonalities of approach, there is but one more question to be asked which applies to all Patterns: What is the Complexity Level of the *relevant* sub-impulse of the Pattern? It is with these three commonalities in mind, that I have crafted a technique for evaluating the Complexity of Terminal Impulses and Triangles, as they largely represent the core logic Neely has laid out in his book, with one caveat. The caveat lies in finding the missing piece of the puzzle needed to tailor his general logic to these two specific Patterns: Base Level Complexity.

On the surface, the solution seems an easy and clear one, begin by asking the first question: Does the Pattern subdivide? If yes, it is of Base Level One complexity, if no, it is of a Base Level Zero complexity. In reality, simply performing the same proccess creates errors in Logic related to the uniqueness of these two particular Wave Patterns.

Building on what we already have, it can be taken as a given that Complexity Levels are, in one form or another, related to the number of subdivisions in a Wave, and/or the manner in which they unfold. Complexity is not the only topic in Neelys' book which covers this aspect of Wave Theory, for instance, the 'Intricacy' of Waves A and B of a Flat Correction provide clues as to the Patterns' legitimacy--with respect to the extent of 'Alternation' between the two adjacent waves. What I am getting at, is that we can acknowledge that the number of subdivisions of a wave, and the manner in which they occur, are certainly important, yet, what this information provides is highly dependent upon the specific Wave Pattern being analyzed.

My last statement is more or less encapsulating the Logic embedded in the first two questions posed earlier (in my describing the commonalities of the proccess). The major problem with applying the same means to these two, unique Patterns is in the assumptions that are 'baked into the cake' of the first question. That is to say, the purpose of the first question is to derive a starting point or Base Level Complexity of a Pattern, yet, to attempt this by asking whether or not the Pattern subdivides, unfortunately, creates an 'uneven' playing field for evaluating Patterns!

Consider the difference between a Monowave and a Polywave, go deeper into each, beyond what their Structure implies, all the way into Compacting and Classifying a Pattern, and reexamine these concepts with respect to the first question. Do you see what is happening in such a thought experiment? **Embedded into the question of whether or not a Wave subdivides, is the assumption that all Waves are qualified to be the subject of such a question.** I am here to tell you that this assumption is wrong! Why?

Well, if there are Wave Patterns that always do, or always don't, subdivide, then why would they be treated the same as Patterns that inherently do one or the other? Put differently: To Logically define the Base Level Complexity of a Wave as depending upon the answer to a question, which, for certain Wave Patterns **is a non-starter**, is so obviously wrong it is painful. And if the point is still lost on you, allow me to add the relevant context: Triangles and Terminal Impulses are each Wave Patterns that can not exist as Monowaves, they ALWAYS subdivide.

Still with me? We are almost there. Okay we get it, so the first question should not be asked for these two Patterns, the only task that remains is then, to postulate which questions (if any), SHOULD be asked in its' place. Well, bringing it all back into focus, the first question seeks to derive a Base Level Complexity of a Pattern, a neccessary step, only an inadequete means. All one need only do is even the playing field: Triangles and Terminal Impulses ALWAYS subdivide, thus, simply removing the (in this case) detrimental first question is all that is required.

Alas, the base level complexity of Triangles and Terminals is Level zero, it is that simple. The final pieces of the puzzle are further tailored to each Pattern. While not explicitly stated, determining the Complexity Level of a Terminal, given you know its' Base Level is zero, is fairly straight-forward: A Terminal Impulse is, technically, Structurally, an Impulse, thus all the same rules apply. The eXtended and most subdivided 'sub-impulse' is evaluated independently, and the most subdivided sub-impulse dictates the proccess of 'adding back' complexity. The tricky part lies in the challenge of side-stepping the confusion that the Terminals sub-impulses are actually, in Structure, Corrections. Yes. Aside from that, and with knowledge of their true Base Level Complexity, the proccess is one in the same as applied to Impulsive waves in general.

Finally, a bit more tailoring for the Pattern of Triangles and, presto, Bobs your uncle. There is just one last challenge unique to this particular Pattern: A Triangle is the ONLY Wave Pattern that does not contain an Impulsive Wave of one lower Degree. So, this means the third question goes out the window, or so it would appear. Since there are, as far as I can see, no errors in Logic with respect to the purpose of asking the third question...the task now becomes reimagining or reimplementing it with consideration of the uniqueness of this particular Pattern. In order to do this, I will 'coin' a brand new term: 'Marginal Complexity.' I will define Marginal Complexity as any additional Levels of Complexity beyond a Patterns Base Level.

So, with respect to Triangles, we already have the first part of the equation figured out (the Base Level Complexity of zero), all that remains is the manner in which we derive its' Marginal Complexity. Keep in mind, while Neely does not provide us with a method for determining the Complexity of a Triangle, as in the Pattern as a whole, all the same rules of adjacency and Corrective Patterns still apply. In line with Neelys' core Logic common to all Patterns, surely, the Triangles' sub-waves (sub-corrections) will inform the Complexity Level of the larger Pattern, only we must account for unique lack of a sub-impulsive wave.

The Marginal Complexity of a Triangle is derived by a slight reworking of the third question, which is replaced with the following question: What is the Complexity Level of the most subdivided Impulse of two lower Degrees? By rephrasing the question in this manner, the same Logic is retained, and the playing field is, all things being equal, even. In practice, the process can be summarized as follows:
1. Begin with a Base Level Complexity of zero.
2. Determine the Complexity Level of each Triangle Leg, with adjacency in mind, and note the most Complex subwave.
3. Assuming the legitimacy of the Pattern holds with respect to adjacent waves, use the most Complex subwave to derive the Marginal Complexity of the Pattern.

The third step has a bit of nuance. For the sake of clarity, consider the following example: Suppose there is a Triangle comprised of all Monowaves and Polywaves. The Base Level Complexity of the Pattern is, again, zero. The Marginal Complexity is derived by finding the most Complex leg of the Triangle, in this case, one or more Polywaves. By virtue of the fact these Polywaves subdivide, themselves, they are of Level 1 Compexity, which is still important as far as adjacency goes. It also makes the Pattern as a whole *relatively more complex than its' all-Monowave counterpart at a 'MetaComplexity' Level (my own term which speaks to Intricacy irrespective of Discrete Levels). Moving on to Marginal Complexity, since the most complex leg of the Triangle is a Polywave, and a Polywaves' most complex sub-impulse is of Level zero complexity, the larger Triangle Pattern's Marginal Complexity is *also zero.

Note: There is a bit of a Logical red herring present, which I will 'Steelman' as follows: "How can the Complexity of the larger Pattern be less than its' most complex subwave?"

It is a red herring due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Complexity Levels in the first place. This argument is, again, taking Pattern-specific Logic and presuming said Logic applies ubiquitously, a silly presumption. The purpose is to identify which legs of a potential Triangle can be adjacent to others, and given the Pattern is legitimate, where, Postionally (and adjacently) the Triangle might reside within a larger Count. Purpose.Is.Everything.

So, in conclusion, the Base Level Complexity of a Triangle is zero, and its' Marginal Complexity is only increased by a Level 2 or higher leg: If Marginal Complexity is increased, its' value equates to N-1 whereby N = the Level 2 or higher leg.


B. "Wave-Particality: The Phenomenan of Multi-ended Waves."

Intro
Allow me to officially introduce a new field of study that (as I will contend in the following section) merits inclusion under the broader Wave Theory: 'Wave-Particality.' By thoroughly documenting this newly-developed concept, and updating it with a brand new set of terms using more precise language and definitions, ideally, it will enable others researching Wave Theory to build upon the foundation of this exciting, yet-to-be-explored Topic. This section will provide you with a good understanding of what constitues a 'Multi-ended Wave,' how they are Labeled, and in what contexts they might be found.

Note: Followers might recall my alluding to this concept in the past using the admittedly, less apt term: 'Wave-Efficacy.' Unfortunately, this and all related terms proved to be insufficient, limiting, and lacking: Their use allowed for confusion when describing how a given wave-end might 'effectively' conclude early or late. Furthermore, it was of great benefit to differentiate these terms from 'Time Frame-based Count Distinction,' a novel concept relating specifically to Counts (as opposed to Waves), which will also be covered in depth.

The initial language used to describe Multi-ended Waves arose out of neccessity (the pertinence of the moment), thus, a 'placeholder' term was chosen--as a point of reference--for casual use in discussion of Charts, in Videos, etc. This and all related terms have now been vastly improved to more accurately reflect the subject-matter, and a new set of Progress Labels have been created: While some former Labels (characters 'e' and 'i') are still used, they have been supplemented, reworked, and modified. There's now a list that can be referred to for a proper attributing of the 'Perspective' responsible for bringing about a waves' Alternate-end. With respect to the character 'e,' it needed a clearer distinction in Label from the last Leg of a Triangle (known as Wave e).


Wave-Particality Progress Labels

Base Characters
e, a, i, and !

Since the characters 'e' and 'i,' when flipped upside down, become 'a' and '!' (respectively), the latter pair have been chosen to represent 'Inverse-Particality,' a term that will be covered (in depth) later in the Post. Broadly speaking, the topic of Multi-ended Waves, can be referred to as 'Wave-Particality.' The presence of 'Particality' in a wave, or lack thereof, speaks to its' 'Endedness,' where as, the presence of 'Inverse Particality' in a Multi-ended Wave, or lack thereof, speaks to the Particle-Wave 'State.' There are only two states: 'Normal Particality' (Normality) vs 'Inverse Particality' (Abnormality). In plain english, a waves' endedness is either single-ended or multi-ended, and, a waves' Particality is either in a state of Normality (Normal Particality) or Abnormality (Inverse Particality).


Progress Labels, Modifiers, and Syntax
Each of these characters are to be accompanied by a prefix or suffix (depending on the character), which always takes the form of an underscore, as follows:

e_ and _i
a_ and _!

The above pairs are then modified by the Multi-ended Waves' regular Progress Label (the label that was used prior to discovering the presence of Particality). Syntax-wise, the Multi-ended Waves' Progress Label is prepended (or appended for characters i and !), and connected with a dash. For instance, a Multi-ended Wave B's 'Normal Particality' is expressed using the following pair of Progress Labels:

B-e_ and _i-B

Any Particle-Wave end can be referred to as a 'Sub-end,' whereas only one, the end that immutably alters its' endedness, is referred to as the 'Alternate-end.'
This will be important to keep in mind as we move forward. The final modification to these labels revolves around the Perspective 'responsible' for creating Wave-Particality: In a Multi-ended Wave, the Alternate-end, is used to express this Perspective.

Below is a list of all five Perspectives (and modifiers):

1. Channeling: CH
2. Complexity (Intricacy or Levels): CM
3. Construction: CN
4. Degree: DG
5. Time (Rules): TR

The modifiers are shown as two capital letters, as you can see there is one for each Perspective. Essentially, these modifiers are 'Flags' representing the Perspective influencing the Multi-ended Waves' Alternate-end, and are to be applied to each sub-end.

Here is the applicable Syntax for the above: A Perspective modifier 'completes' the underscore, regardless of whether the underscore is a prefix or suffix. In other words, it forms a_sandwich around the underscore. For example, the Alternate-end of a Multi-ended Wave B whos' Normal Particality was due to Complexity, is assembled as follows:

CM_i-B

In order to grasp the significance of the Alternate-end, and how it plays a vital role in the diagnostic process, one must first learn the 'Wave-Particality PreConstructive Logic.'

Logic, Inverse Particality, and Flow

PreConstructive Logic (Sequence and the Alternate-end)
In the heading, "Sequence" is relevant in multiple contexts: The sequence of the diagnostic process, the proper sequencing of Progress Labels, and the sequential 'Flow' of one's analysis.

There is a hiearchy of Logic at play: The Subposition of a Multi-ended Wave can only follow the failed PreSubposition of a Wave. In other words, to suspect a change in a waves' endedness, one must first rule out any and all other interpretations. So you see, sequence is part in parcel to the diagnostic process, in this case--knowing whether or not to begin.

By way of Negation, in the eliminating of all 'Single-ended Wave' counts, a potential Wave-Particality is implied to be present. The mere suspician of a Multi-ended Wave is enough to proceed with applying Working Labels: It dictates which sub-end is the Alternate-end, and in turn, informs the selection and sequence of 'Wave-Particality Progress Labels.'

Logic (the entire proccess)
The Wave-Particality PreConstructive Logic is, again, characterized by the proper Subposition of a Multi-ended Wave. The rest of the process is fairly similar to that of counting Single-ended Waves, but with a few minor caveats. Constructively, it can be said that--at this stage in the process--a swath of 'Perspective Testing' is performed. In truth, testing for each Perspective is, really, just applying the Neely Method as it's used more generally, only here, with respect to the waves' Alternate-end.

Upon determining the Perspective which impacted a waves' endedness, the proper flag is applied accordingly. This modification to the Working Label solidifies the Particle-Wave state. Additionally, it represents a 'compacting' of the pair of Working Labels into the-completed_set of Wave Particality Progress Labels.

Finally, the sub-end which occurs Late, becomes the 'effective end' used in PostConstructively evaluating the count (Careful: Not neccessarily the Alternate-end).

Note: The Degree Perspective modifier has important implications as to the 'Flow' of ones' analysis (covered in the next section).

Inverse Particality and Flow
As mentioned earlier, Inverse Particality is all about State: A pair of sub-ends must exist in one of two states. The Alternate-end usually occurs Late, indicating the Multi-ended Wave (Particle-Wave) completed in a state of Normality. If the Alternate-end happens to occur Early, then the Particle-Wave (Multi-ended Wave) is said to have completed in a state of Abnormality.

In order to gracefully undress Flow, it is best to approach from all angles (bare with me as there's much to be explored). The following statements will allow us to get a bit more comfortable with the subject-matter:

1. Ultimately, a clear consensus will be found as to a Waves' endedness.
2. Yet, the same does not neccessarily apply with respect to a Multi-ended Waves' state or Perspective modifier.

Flow, as in the flow of one's analysis, is a term that was devised to reconcile how both of the above statements are valid. To warm up the stage for the rest of this Section, allow me to distinguish between Flow, Focus, and Degree, and gradually touch on how they all interplay.

Chart parameters, scaling, and techniques, are all scrupulously covered in:

"Mastering Elliot Wave"
'Presenting the Neely Method: The First Scientific, Objective Approach to Market Forecasting with the Elliot Wave Theory' by Glen Neely with Eric Hall

Farther, the subject of Charting is eXtended to cover how one should properly proportion a chart, informing any Direct analysis of a market. For those unfamiliar with these concepts, it would behoove you to read, refer to, and review the book I just mentioned, which tediously explores them all at length, with great care, and more attention to detail than would be appropriate for this Post. With that said, the following will provide but a small taste of what has been carefully layed down there, regarding Direct versus InDirect analysis.

Consider a small subsection of the historical price data for a given market: On a properly proportioned chart, one can attempt to make conclusions about this subsection Directly, or, they can zoom out to a grander view (the historical view in this case), and attempt to make conclusions about the same subsection, Indirectly (taking into account all that happened prior to it, and subsequent to it). In a nutshell, that is the difference between Direct and InDirect analysis.

Ideally, the conclusions formed about a subsection Directly--and InDirectly--will concurr, but that's not always the case: If there is a discrepency, how such a kinundrum is reconciled, speaks to, in part, the Flow of ones' analysis. Depending on a myriad of factors, including but not limited to, the particular market being analyzed, the recency of a given Segment, and/or the style of analysis, an elliotician might choose to favor what can be gleemed from a Direct 'focus,' over that of an InDirect focus, or vice versa. In many cases, the intended audience will be presented with only a single focus (a single, properly proportioned chart), when there may be, in reality, much more to an analysis than meets the eye. Now that we are all on the same page, the concept of Flow, as well as the Perspective of Degree, can be properly framed.

The previous section ended on an important note, now, having filled in the relevant background, we can dig deeper: The presence of the Degree Perspective modifier (DG) on any chart, has enormous implications: It reveals the dominant Flow of ones' analysis. Usually, an InDirect focus will prove to be the dominant Flow, yet, there are exceptions and both are taken into account. Only one further clarification is needed to begin to grasp why the second statement (mentioned earlier) is true: A 'Direct focus' is differentiated (relatively) from an 'InDirect focus,' by chart paramaters, scaling, and alike, as opposed to, what might inform the chart itself. And if that doesn't make sense, the next paragraph will expand on this.

With respect to data noting any aspect of a markets' history, residing outside of the confines of that charts' specific Time-range, said data is still, being presented on a Directly focused chart. For example, creating a note about the 'Crash of 1987' on a properly proportioned chart of the last month of trading in the S&P 500, or similarly, displaying a trendline on such a chart (annotatively purporting to have emenated from the same event), does NOT make the chart 'InDirectly focused.'

With this clarification, and now, defining the Perspective of Degree, we've certainly begun to put our fingers on it all. The Perspective of Degree is used if some 'out of focus,' aspect of a chart--emenating from a Wave of a different Degree (as in a different degree than the Multi-ended Wave itself)--informs a Directly focused chart, as to the presence of a Particle-Wave. Having explored all of the moving parts, I can now provide what is needed such that it all comes together in a spectacular fashion. Are you ready? In technical analysis, the focus of your chart can not be understated...an improper focus can easily tempt you into arriving at conclusions early, but this is not a problem: There are more ways to scale your chart than there are to leave your lover (as the saying goes).

Each and every renewing of a Charts' focus will satisfy a different appetite, building confidence in your market outlook from a number of different Positions. When putting together a Count for the ages, or a historical Count, no subsection of the data can be ignored--since all effect all--proper care and attention should be distributed accordingly. Being on top of all vantage points, leaving no stone unturned, will surely merit the reward of getting to the bottom of it all, at which point the market essentially does all the work for you.

By performing the entire proccess of Wave-Particality Constructive Logic, and applying Wave-Particality Progress Labels to your chart, naturally you will be releasing a lions-share of information with respect to Flow. Flow divulges
an inordinate amount meaning, perhaps even more than one can swallow, including but not limited to: 'Dominance,' State, and Temporality of Analysis.


C. Trans-structured and Multi-structured Waves

Trans-structured and Multi-structured Waves are a topic I have spoken about in a couple of my past charts, lectures, and videos. Long time followers will recognize the first concept under its' former term 'Transgendered Waves.' For the sake of clarity, I have reworked the former terminology (largely a hat tip to the trans community), touched up the Language and Definitions, and implemented brand new Logic to create an additional, distinct but related concept. The topic is now broken into the following two concepts, which more effectively describe the subject matter: Trans-structured and Multi-structured Waves. Consistent with the linguistic precision needed for this Section, these newly developed concepts are yet another example of ideas never *explicitly mentioned in Glenn Neely's book.

This, also yet to be explored, topic is all about the 'Structure' of a wave. Essentially, all Wave Patterns fall into one of two categories: Corrections and Impulses.

Or so we are told...

Trans-structured Waves
A Trans-structured Wave is a wave that is determined to be of a given Structure Directly, only to be, neccessarily, recategorized as the opposite Structure InDirectly. Internalizing what Trans-structured Waves are, where they might occur, and when, relies on a couple of ideas I have mentioned briefly: Such as the Flow and Temporality of ones' analysis.

More on Flow
To further explore the concept of Flow, I'll need to pinpoint two main ideas: The paradox of Elliot Wave and Dominance. Flow is inextricably tied to the paradox of Wave Theory: All waves are comprised of smaller degree waves, and are, on the other hand, also a part of larger degree waves. This fractal nature applies into perpetuity...It's Wasserpests all the way down...or up (on a large enough time scale). Careful though, most will not tell you this, but a wise man (or group) once stated 'on such a time scale all things go to zero.' The paradox being in that there is no silver bullet starting point from which to begin your analysis, only trade-offs.

Dominance is one aspect of Flow, which can be described as a 'top down' or 'bottom up' approach dominating in a given context. In this instance, it is not from whence one begins that matters, but rather, which of two opposing approaches takes hold. In reality, the elliotician faces a constant juggling of the past, present, and future--as well as how they are all viewed and integrated into the big picture. Amidst the chaos of it all, one must make conclusions about a given Wave, Wave Pattern, or Count, that will usually favor what is gleemed about such using one or the other.

Flow is a bit like what some have known as 'the dao,' it can be known, yet is not bound by the limitations of words. And it is in this breath, we can say that Flow covers the myriad of ways in which indepedent analysis can arrive at the correct answer using slight differences in style, proccess, or logic.

So you see, depending on the flow of ones' analysis, situations may arise whereby the Structure of a Wave is known Directly as, for example, Corrective, only to be InDirectly rendered Impulsive due to some aspect derived 'from the top down.'

Multi-structured Waves are a related concept in that they revolve around Structure, yet there is one major difference: A Multi-structured Wave simultaneously maintains opposing Structures. The waves' 'Dual Structure' is, similar to the vast majority of these newly developed concepts, only possible given the unavoidable, inescapable need to complete your Count--by integrating this (and only this) type of wave.

D. Abnormal Triangles

(Brief)
While the criteria for diagnosing an Abnormal Triangle is quite easily applied, putting your finger on how they work underneath the hood is much more challenging. In order to grasp what lies beneath the surface, one must internalize why they are needed in the first place. Do not miss what is right in front of your face, yet never explicitly mentioned...their purpose.

Again, please refer to Parts 1 and 2 of my "Litecoin: A treaties on triangles" series to get more familiar with these topics, though, I will be providing more substance later in this post. In short, Wave E of an Abnormal Triangle, and the Contra Base-line it creates, differentiate the Pattern: Wave E should fall *outside of a 0.382 to 0.618 Retracement of the longest leg of the triangle, 'centered in' the large wave.

(In Depth)
Explicitly, Neely dedicates but one small page to this Wave Pattern. In comparison to the other three major types of Contracting Triangles (Horizontal, Irregular, and Running), this is nothing. Yet, the Pattern can be found in numerous Diagrams all throughout the second half of the book. Why?

Abnormal Triangles are an extremely important Pattern to understand, yet, perhaps, are the least understood. Do not be fooled by the tiny allocation of space, at least by way of text, dedicated to this Type of Triangle. If you want to penetrate the enigma that is the Abnormal Triangle, the ability to discern between a Direct and InDirect analysis, as well as between PreConstructively, Constructively, and Post Constructively evaluating a Pattern, is of great significance. In part, this helps explain why there is so much text allocated to the other three Types of Triangle: There's an immense amount of subtle nuance to be gleemed regarding how these Patterns unfold. The Construction of each Pattern is made to be the focus, where as, with respect to an Abnormal (diagnostic criteria aside), they are most effectively taken in by what is NOT said, as opposed to what is said.

To master the skill of Counting waves, one must rule the Past, Present, and Future. Failing to make proper sense of the Past, regardless of what you might have thought was occurring *at the time*, will gravely distort your vision of the Present, and in turn, Future. Neelys' book contains many trap doors, they are not there by accident, they are there to help shape your education. One of these being the 'matter of fact' tone used in various instances, which, should you make it far enough in your journey--you will learn--many are seemingly contradicted at later points, in an oh-so casual and careless manner. After spending a ton of time practicing this skill, it only natural to experience the emotions of anger and frustration upon learning what you thought were prescriptive, absolute truths, which really are not so simple. Ideally, if you stick with it long enough, it begins to register that you are being shown every angle and/or vantage point from which the market can be viewed. The beauty is in discovering that none of them are inherently 'right,' but rather, they are just different perspectives which, collectively, enable supreme predictive value.

To not read for subtext, and to take all of the books minutia literally, is to fail catch its' hidden gems such as the Abnormal Triangle. In the series of Posts I referenced earlier (on the LTCBTC Ratio), I break down how, ultimately, all Triangle Types are differentiated (Directly or InDirectly) by the manner in which they Channel. The Abnormal Triangle is no exception, and Neely cleverly slips this into Diagrams B and C in Chapter 12, page 17. While it is not explicitly stated, simply apply the the criteria for Wave E of an Abnormal Triangle to what is shown, and ask yourself whether or not these Diagrams qualify.

We know what the legs, shape, and formation of an Abnormal Triangle look like, but there is so much more to be explored. The question is not what constitutes an Abnormal Triangle, the question is...why are they needed? If one truly desires the truth, answering this question is paramount. So you see, Abnormal Triangles are not confined to the same rigid rules of their counterparts. They represent an unimaginable extent of much more exotic and kinky behaviors one can not wrap their head around, so long as it all fits between converging lines.

Instead of obsessing over the criteria surrounding each leg of the triangle entering into the Apex, the extent of its' Thrust, and subsequent Price Climax, the elliotician is largely and attentively Classifying their presence after completion (after the fact). The Abnormal Triangle embodies the spirit of a Normal Triangle, yet freed from the bounds that tie Normal Triangles down.

Imagine a scenario whereby the Post Constructive Evaluation of your Count is only satisfied by having a Triangle Pattern in a certain Position, but the Construction of your triangle violates all the rules, the Abnormal Triangle perfectly fills the void, completing your Count. Perhaps you are beginning to see why this Pattern is so desperately needed: Market participants might be able to disrupt what unfolds within a given Position in your Count, but they cannot impact the meaning of what occurred.


Note: For a deep dive on Abnormal Triangles, and Triangles in general, see the following published charts:

5. The Holy Grail: Bitcoin's Multi-ended, Abnormal Triangle Wave Z.

A. Revisiting the cryptic 3D 'great pyramids' chart

The following chart snapshot was cryptically released, first as a preimage (a SHA256 Hash of the snapshot URL) and eventually, later, as the link itself (the input to the Hash Function). Below is the snapshot itself, and the published chart the snapshot was published within (as an update).


-The Chart snapshot of 'the 3D pyramids'

-Published chart "LARP Capital: The Big Long"

As the observer of a chart, it is always important to be aware of the 'Temporality of Analysis.' In other words, it is essential to acknowledge what was and wasn't known at the time of publishing. This might seem obvious, but you would be surprised how many people (who are usually on the sidelines) fail to appreciate such a basic and neccessary consideration regarding the predicting of major moves in a market. While this elementary notion is universal to 'reading' any chart, it is especially vital when it comes to my referencing any past charts in this Post (and Series).

The value of revisiting this chart, is to highlight the progression of thought I have had throughout these last couple of years. To master the waves, one must learn the difference between explanatory and predictive analysis. With respect to this chart, despite the fact that the price action did not unfold precisely as the roadmap predicted, there is tremendous explanatory value to be gained in both reviewing and revealing my thinking at the time. From an Elliot Wave perspective, to this day, I maintain that my stance was indeed the 'right' thinking.' Now, to finally reveal a bit more insight into the (quite intentionally) cryptic snapshot, will help lay down the first piece of the puzzle that is Bitcoin's 'holy grail' Wave Z Abnormal Triangle.

First off, let me state that each of the two potential scenarios being shown (green and red), were projecting the remaining legs of what would be (presumably at the time) a 'Normal' Contracting Triangle in the position of Wave Z. It is not hard to reproduce this projection, it was simply an overlaying of the requisite Time-based and/or Price-based Relationships found in Contracting Triangles, building on the early formation of the Pattern. The difficulty is in the tens of thousands of hours of education that enable your discovering that Bitcoin was in Wave Z of a larger Running Triple Three correction, the single most powerful Wave Pattern there is (as far as what it implies about the future), and that, clearly as my thinking at the time shows, Wave Z would manifest as a Contracting Triangle.

By projecting these scenarios, fascinatingly enough, one begins to real!ze how the 'blueprint' of a 2D (two-dimensional) Wave Pattern, actually 'comes to life' in the form of a 3D (three-dimensional) pyramid: Experiencing this epiphany flow through me was rather mystical and enlightening, to say the least. While the universe said (oh so classicly) 'to hell with your plans' in the subsequent manifesting of a three-move Flat Correction, as it would happen, the stars did eventually align in the unfolding of Bitcoins' Wave Z Abnormal Triangle.


B. The key to the Holy Grail: 'The Immaculate False Break' and The Complexity Level of the Historical Count

The Series began with the aim of analyzing each and every relevant Segment of Bitcoins' price history from a Direct perspective, that is to say, counting the waves without regard to surrounding subsections of the data, or any other subsection of the dataset. While this is of great educational value, and perhaps, an intermediate step towards discovering the true historical count, there is an unimaginable amount of work needed to complete the task.

Not only does this reductionist approach hardly get you started, but even a good understanding of the more all-encompassing, dynamic application of the Neely Method, is still not enough to emerge victorious. The swath of further clarified and newly developed concepts I have laid out in this Post, are ALL needed to solve the mystery that is Wave Z of our Running Triple Three, Wave 2 Correction.



Chart Snapshots and Published Charts

Chart A-F, The Complexity Level of Segments 1-6



Chart A, The Complexity Levels of Segment 1



Chart B, The Complexity Levels of Segment 2



Chart C, The Complexity Levels of Segment 3



Chart D, The Complexity Levels of Segment 4



Chart E, The Complexity Levels of Segment 5



Chart F, The Complexity Levels of Segment 6


The Complexity Level of Segment 6 prior to the false break

"The Last Dance Bulls Win Bitcoin"

Quote from the above published chart:
"To sum it all up, we add back our complexity level 1 of black wave 3 (really slightly more than 1 (really slightly more than slightly more than 1)) to the base level complexity of a terminal (0) in order to get a total of 1. Then, we add 1 back to our base level 1 of the larger red impulse in order to get a total of 2. Then, we add 2 back to our base level of 1 of the larger purple impulse in order to get a grand total of level 3 for largest wave C."

Note: The Complexity Level of 3 for Wave C is not the grand total for the entire Wave Pattern (a Flat Correction). The grand total for the Flat Correction, which represents the earlier Sub-end of Multi-ended Wave Z, is 4 (the Flat subdivides giving a Base Level Complexity of 1, by adding back the Marginal Complexity of 3, you arrive at a grand total of 4).


The Complexity Level of Segment 6 subsequent to the false break

Chart G, The Complexity of the historical Count and The Immaculate False Break


Note: The Complexity of the Wave 2 Running Triple Three Correction sums to a grand total of Level 2 Complexity. In a Non Standard Correction, it is the most Complex Standard Correction which dictates the Complexity of the larger Pattern: Wave W is of Level 2 Complexity, it is the most Complex of the three Standard Corrections, and is used to derive the grand total of the Pattern.


Chart H, The Holy Grail: The Multi-ended, Multi-structured, Abnormal Triangle Wave Z (with Wave-Particality Progress Labels)
tradingview.com/mkFvDpFA



Determining the Complexity of a Multi-ended Wave
In the spirit of the 'Life of Bitcoin' series up until this point, I provided a Segment 6 chart snapshot analysed Directly, yet, cleverly slipping in a few key words "InDirectly informed." I did not do this by accident, there are two reasons for this crucial nuance:

This seemingly minor caveat is vital one, as a true Direct analysis of this Segment can be found in my published, real time analysis "The Last Dance Bulls Win Bitcoin," which sufficiently covers the Wave Z Flat Correction. More importantly, this InDirectly informed, Direct Analysis, of Wave Z is needed to derive the Complexity of the larger Degree Wave 2 Running Triple Three Correction. As per the Wave-Particality Post Constructive Logic, the Alternate-end is the relevant Sub-end used in evaluation. Again, outside of the above nuance, Post Constructive evaluation of a Multi-ended Wave is no different than that of a typical Wave! This will be important to keep in mind as we derive the Complexity Wave 2.

For those who have been following, I've long maintained that the market had put in a significant bottom, that would effectively represent the beginning of Bitcoins' most powerful bull cycle ever. For those interested, there is extremely valuable insight (of a mindset applicable to the conditions of real time analysis), to be found in parts B. and C. of Section 7 'Real Time Analysis (Speed Chess),' feel free give them a read.



6. The Grand Finale: Overtime Settled

The aim of this section is to revisit new developments in the market with respect to Segment 4's Post Constructive Evaluation.

Note: The two topics in this Section of the Post are all covered in great detail in these past, published charts:


Topics A and B:

A. Thrust Post-Constructive Logic: Thrust Degree, Thrust Type, and Settlement.

Again, for details please review Part 4 of the series, but I will include a few snippets relevant to the following update:

Regarding Settlement:

"The market, inevitably via 'Price (In)Validation' will always arrive at (and exceed) one of two potential 'Destinations':
A. The 'higher' of the sub-thrust high and Apex Price Climax (higher as in farther away from the Apex Point).
B. The Apex Point"

"Time Invalidation does not neccessarily mean that a Thrust Type is invalidated Time-wise, but rather, more broadly, covers any invalidation that occurs within the Apex Time Zone. Consider a game of basketball whereby if the score is tied when the clock runs out, overtime is settled by the rule of 'next point wins.' Time Invalidation means the game did not go into overtime."

So, we now have important new price action with respect to Post Constructively Evaluating Thrust Type on Segment 4. Essentially, with the break of all time highs on the price of Bitcoin, on a weekly closing basis, overtime has officially concluded (what would have been an Apex Price Climax has now been breached **outside of the Apex Time Zone**) and the Thrust Type is confirmed to be, as predicted, a 'Non Limiting X.' Keep in mind, the recent dip in prices is entirely irrelevant since one of the two destinations has now officially been breached on a closing basis.

As far as the Segment 6 Abnormal Triangle goes, evaluating the Thrust is largely irrelevant in such a Triangle, and in this case, is entirely irrelevant due to the fully congested Apex created by the the C-E 'Contra Base-line.'

B. Why approaches A and B are even less relevant in the Wave Z Abnormal Triangle.

Similarly, the status of the Segment 6 Abnormal Triangle *itself as Limiting or Non Limiting, is also useless (really inapplicable) due to the fully congested Apex. Feel free to read "The elephant in the room" Addendum to Part 4 of this series to get a better understanding of why these approaches are a huge waste of time in pretty much all circumstances!

Final Comments:
It should be stated that there are a few key concepts informing this Count which have been laid out extensively in past charts, videos, and lectures which may not neccessarily be referenced in this series. Of note: 'Moving the Angle of the Dangle,' 'Oh Lines,' and how the 'Time Rules' significantly impact both the ruling out of other Counts as well as the supporting of our Running Triple Three Wave 2 Correction.


7. Addendum: Additional Related Content (Honorable Mention)


A. Disclaimer

Let me be clear. Any and all (good faith) skepticism, criticism, or other is not only welcome, but encouraged. With that said, I will not enable nor engage with comments that fail to stay on topic (of the given Segment or larger Historical Count). It should not be controversial that my analysis is rooted in Elliot Wave principles that were layed out in the 1980s (and have since been widely accepted). To be specific, if you are not at least familiar with the following book and/or the core concepts that are presented, in all honesty, it will be difficult to take your arguments against my post seriously.

"Mastering Elliot Wave"
'Presenting the Neely Method: The First Scientific, Objective Approach to Market Forecasting with the Elliot Wave Theory' by Glen Neely with Eric Hall

Similarly, to disregard the modern (within the last 5 decades) developments contributed to this field of study, and pretend such is a valid criticism to my Historical Count on Bitcoin is beyond silly (feel free to express your views on the progress that has been made elsewhere). A valid criticism will stick to my actual Historical Count within the realm of what is widely accepted to be considered Elliot Wave Analysis.

With that said, while I will entertain and engage with such a criticism, and I will gladly explain anything you might not understand about a given chart, Segment (analysis), or my Historical Count, I will continue to adhere to the attitude of 'put up or shut up.' Demonstrating an Elliot Wave Count of any substance (as opposed to the 9/10 charts you will find on this site which plop on a bunch of letters and numbers under the guise of Elliot Wave Analysis), let alone a Historical Count that manages to succesfully integrate all relevant price history, *is extremely hard*. Conversely, proclaiming "your count is 'wrong'" and cherry picking some minutia from a source you hardly understand, is extremely easy. As I have long maintained (and yes, I am the greatest ever): There is something wrong with EVERY Count...the question is which Count has by far the least wrong with it. Understand this, and you might just have a shot at actually counting waves.

On the other end of the extreme, please due note the following two paragraphs before we begin:

While I have read numerous books on the topic of Elliot Wave Analysis, none succeded in leaving a lasting impression on me, or even, in rivaling other books I have read about the broader topic of Technical Analysis. Yet, the I book mentioned earlier, has had, by far, the biggest influence on my work. I have spoken at length about the importance of reading this book for *subtext. In my own charts and analysis, at times, you might catch subtle inferences to seemingly new concepts that are not EXPLICITLY (yet *are implicitly) mentioned or presented within the book I mentioned earlier. There are, however, a few new concepts that I have broached, explored, and/or perfected in my work.

For the most part, I do my best to clearly point out when and where that might be the case, and when I do not succeed in that regard, it is largely due to the reality that I *have mentioned these new concepts in the past, thus, to rehash these sorts of stipulations on every chart or post would be overkill. In conclusion, I will continue to maintain that most of what I present is largely helping to fill in the gaps of what is either, not sufficiently covered, or, is said via subtext. In the case of the latter, should you disagree with my assertion, I am quite happy to take the credit for having invented it : ) In the case of the former, reader be advised: There is a swath of new concepts, clarifications, terms, and extensions thereof, laid out in this post with regard to the triangle and its' Thrust. I believe they are of huge significance and practical value, you can be the judge.

B. Real Time Analysis (Speed Chess Pt. 1)

Revisiting 'the last dance' chart, and related, complex conceptd

Before moving on, an important aspect to of my thinking at the time, and as time progressed, relates to two (fairly complex) market dynamics that were playing out, which have been described at length in past charts, many of which have or will be referenced here, but I will briefly summarize:

1. The unfolding of what is now, unequivocally, Wave C of Z, manifested as an Impulse (in Structure) *as determined Directly.

2. On the Monthly chart (as opposed to the Weekly Time Unit) there was a 'Time-Frame based Count Disagreement,' related the above.

As you can see on the pyramids chart, consistent with the predictive aspect of our analysis, we were still bearish on the Price, even then. When the price did go on to make new lows, the above dynamic came into play at full force and can be described as follows. Essentially, the three move correction shown on the weekly, implied that Wave Z was already complete, whereas, the Monthly chart implied the Flat Correction was but one lower Degree (Wave A of Z).

This Disagreement would ultimately have to be Settled in, seemingly, one of two ways. But what if there was a third way?

Part of what makes me the #1 in the world, is that contrary to popular belief, my analysis tends to air on the side of conservatism, though it is not surprising why most would miss this considering they are not aware of what is happening when a major change in trend is occurring. So, when everyone thinks the price is going to go in one direction for the rest of time, and I am flashing warning signs, ultimately shifting my