Resolving the EW theory inconsistencies
This is a reaction to Alessio Rastani’s Youtube EW theory analysis of Bitcoin. I explained that he had inconsistencies in my comments on this video.
This the only resolution to all the inconsistencies that makes complete sense to me.
Thus non-legacy Bitcoin is attacked from February 2021 peak ~$75 –85k. Legacy Bitcoin continues upward. This explains the ~8k ETH and $9+ projection for Cardano (ADA) for February, then ETH crashing to $1200 probably due to the proof-of-stake Merge and heat death of it’s proof-of-work miners (who will presumably fork creating a free airdrop which is income taxable).
I think the proof-of-stake altcoins will bounce back. Non-legacy Bitcoin may bounce back somewhat. But then perhaps come the cyberattacks that the World Economic Forum has been warning us about. We will know all proof-of-work altcoins can be destroyed with the repetitive mining difficulty attacks. Proof-of-stake altcoins can perhaps be disrupted with DDoS attacks because their delegated stakers (e.g. DPoS) are permissioned and few in number.
This the only resolution to all the inconsistencies that makes complete sense to me.
Thus non-legacy Bitcoin is attacked from February 2021 peak ~$75 –85k. Legacy Bitcoin continues upward. This explains the ~8k ETH and $9+ projection for Cardano (ADA) for February, then ETH crashing to $1200 probably due to the proof-of-stake Merge and heat death of it’s proof-of-work miners (who will presumably fork creating a free airdrop which is income taxable).
I think the proof-of-stake altcoins will bounce back. Non-legacy Bitcoin may bounce back somewhat. But then perhaps come the cyberattacks that the World Economic Forum has been warning us about. We will know all proof-of-work altcoins can be destroyed with the repetitive mining difficulty attacks. Proof-of-stake altcoins can perhaps be disrupted with DDoS attacks because their delegated stakers (e.g. DPoS) are permissioned and few in number.
Disclaimer
The information and publications are not meant to be, and do not constitute, financial, investment, trading, or other types of advice or recommendations supplied or endorsed by TradingView. Read more in the Terms of Use.