As the end of 2022 approaches, a great number of bitcoin proponents are questioning whether or not the bottom is in as far as the official end of the crypto winter is concerned. The current bitcoin bear run just entered the longest bottom formation since the 2013-2015 bitcoin bear market. Moreover, analysts note that most of the technical bottom indicators used to predict bitcoin prices have failed to forecast whether or not the bottom is in.
Rainbows and S2F: The List of Technical Indicators That Failed to Predict Bitcoin’s Bottom
A month ago, crypto supporters celebrated enduring one of the longest and harshest bitcoin bear markets since the 2013-2015 bitcoin bear market. At the time, the 2013-2015 bitcoin bear run was the longest downturn but today, the current crypto economy’s contraction period is set to surpass the 2013-2015 crypto retrenchment.
In addition to the longest bottom phase, Bitcoin.com News reported 144 days ago how a number of technical indicators failed this year to predict bitcoin’s future U.S. dollar value. One of the biggest price model failures mentioned this year was the stock-to-flow (S2F) model, which was denounced by Ethereum advocate Anthony Sassano and ETH-co-founder Vitalik Buterin last June.
“We need more pain before we make a bottom”
My man, we’ve seen:
– a top 3 exchange collapse– 2 top VCs in the space get liq’d– 2 top 10 coins w/ a $60B+ mcap go to zero– lending market wiped out– Bitcoin down ~80% from ATH– alts down 90-99% from ATH
What more do you want?
— K A L E O (@CryptoKaleo) December 22, 2022
With all the so-called ‘greatest’ technical indicators failing miserably, many crypto proponents are still writing forum posts and social media threads about bitcoin’s confounded bottom. For instance, on Dec. 27, the Twitter account Crypto Noob tweeted: “Bitcoin is currently trading in the oversold zone. Which is historically where the bottom forms. Do you think BTC has bottomed out?”
Questions and posts like these are littered across crypto-focused forums and social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. On Reddit, the subreddit forum r/cryptocurrency features a post that highlights how technical bottom indicators have failed, and the author of the post details that the analysts have “no clue” and this time “IS different.”
The post’s author “u/Beyonderr” explains how eight technical indicators were not reliable to bitcoin traders this year. For example, the weekly RSI (relative strength index) was supposed to signal oversold levels and bitcoin’s bottom, but Beyonderr says “this was not true this year.”
Other unreliable technical indicators Beyonderr mentioned include the monthly MACD (moving average convergence/divergence), the Rainbow price chart, the 200-week moving average, the 100-week moving average X 20-week moving average, the Pi cycle indicator, the Hash ribbons indicator, and the average percentage drawdown from a cycle’s high.
Moreover, Beyonderr mocked the S2F price model by calling it the “Meme bonus” indicator. “The worst indicator of them all, Plan B’s horrible Stock-to-flow model. Add it to the failed pile,” Beyonderr wrote. The post on r/cryptocurrency also mentioned that there may be four indicators that suggest the bottom “might be in,” at least according to Beyonderr.
The indicators Beyonderr cited include signals like “time in the market,” the “Puell Multiple,” the “Mayer Multiple,” and the “MVRV Z-score.” Meanwhile, a great number of people on social media platforms like Twitter wholeheartedly believe the bottom is awfully close to being in, but so far most technical signals have just been unreliable deviations.
What do you think about the failed technical indicators that could not predict bitcoin’s bottom? Let us know what you think about this subject in the comments section below.
Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.