This makes sense from a political perspective as well. Most whales are loading up now, which is evidenced by the sharp drops in price with V shaped recoveries. These are liquidity siphons by market makers designed to suck up supply by liquidating stop losses. Fast forward a year, after their pockets are full, the powers that be will start to flood the markets with liquidity through quantitative easing, triggering a massive inflow of retail investors to buy all the supply that the whales accumulated at lower prices for a bubble level premium. All that would coincide with the midterm elections, where Republicans are likely to lose control of the House and maybe the Senate, so they'll try to grab as much cash as they can, while they can. A tale as old as time, just with a different commodity.
Outstanding quantitative framework that finally reconciles the 2011 anomaly most analysts conveniently ignore. Your λ = 2.07 finding from Fourier analysis is particularly compelling because it elegantly unifies what looked like calendar-driven cycles into a more fundamental physics-based model. The insight that continuous scale invariance (power law) must necessarily produce discrete scale invariance (log-periodic bubbles) is the kind of theoretical coherence that separates rigorous analysis from pattern-matching. What really resonates is the capital tier progression argument: each bubble needs not just higher prices but an order-of-magnitude shift in who can meaningfully participate. At $100B a sovereign wealth fund yawns, at $5T they pay atention. This also explains the volatility decay we're seeing, deeper liquidity from institutional rails makes the crashes less catastrophic even as absolute dollar moves grow larger. The 2027 projection will be fascinating to track against the halvingnarratives.
I'm a bit sceptical for some reasons, but I still acknowledge the importance of this approach (and I love your paying attention to faster harmonics, nice explanations of everything etc.)
Now, why I'm sceptical:
- not enough data - bubbles
- relationship of the btc with gold - can we say this was stable through the time? yeah, the power law still works, but the gold was rather stable (ie. from the very aggresively behaving btc point of view, it was 'close' to usd)... now, the gold is "unstable"/exponential(?)
- btc is slowly becoming widely recognised "macro" asset - and here I see the biggest modelling problem: the bubbles will be driven (parasitically, when looking through lens of your model) by global liquidity changes and such other things; yes, these are also cyclical, but their behavior changes as the structure of underlying macro mechanisms becoming more and more complex (also, the big regulators learned from past crises, so we can't expect the same crisis/liquidity bubble dynamics as in the past).
I mean - this will be more and more important for the future bubbles, and their underlying mechanisms, I'm afraid, will not be so nicely cyclical (even in log time).
So, can we be sure your model will not be lost in real macro, gold etc. "noise"?
It’s a lot to comment on so I will just comment on the gold exponential, the point there is that gold grows in price relative to fiat enough to offset inflation in the long run, roughly. So it is more stable for sure. But gold is closer to fiat than it is to Bitcoin and its price in dollars grows roughly exponentially with a CPI like average CAGR. It’s slower supply growth makes it an interesting alternative to model against, it is worth looking at Bitcoin vs gold and Bitcoin vs dollar both to see how they compare. Okay, second thing, yes global liquidity matters and we could see that reflected in other harmonics as we explore more.
Thank you for this work 🙏
thanks
This makes sense from a political perspective as well. Most whales are loading up now, which is evidenced by the sharp drops in price with V shaped recoveries. These are liquidity siphons by market makers designed to suck up supply by liquidating stop losses. Fast forward a year, after their pockets are full, the powers that be will start to flood the markets with liquidity through quantitative easing, triggering a massive inflow of retail investors to buy all the supply that the whales accumulated at lower prices for a bubble level premium. All that would coincide with the midterm elections, where Republicans are likely to lose control of the House and maybe the Senate, so they'll try to grab as much cash as they can, while they can. A tale as old as time, just with a different commodity.
I truly appreciate your work and I am striving to understand more and more of the science behind it.
Outstanding quantitative framework that finally reconciles the 2011 anomaly most analysts conveniently ignore. Your λ = 2.07 finding from Fourier analysis is particularly compelling because it elegantly unifies what looked like calendar-driven cycles into a more fundamental physics-based model. The insight that continuous scale invariance (power law) must necessarily produce discrete scale invariance (log-periodic bubbles) is the kind of theoretical coherence that separates rigorous analysis from pattern-matching. What really resonates is the capital tier progression argument: each bubble needs not just higher prices but an order-of-magnitude shift in who can meaningfully participate. At $100B a sovereign wealth fund yawns, at $5T they pay atention. This also explains the volatility decay we're seeing, deeper liquidity from institutional rails makes the crashes less catastrophic even as absolute dollar moves grow larger. The 2027 projection will be fascinating to track against the halvingnarratives.
Congratulations for your scientific based work.
This is "THE REAL NARRATIVE KILLER" - good luck to "the lose canons & from the hip shooters" -
Hi Steven, thank you for this amazing work!
I'm a bit sceptical for some reasons, but I still acknowledge the importance of this approach (and I love your paying attention to faster harmonics, nice explanations of everything etc.)
Now, why I'm sceptical:
- not enough data - bubbles
- relationship of the btc with gold - can we say this was stable through the time? yeah, the power law still works, but the gold was rather stable (ie. from the very aggresively behaving btc point of view, it was 'close' to usd)... now, the gold is "unstable"/exponential(?)
- btc is slowly becoming widely recognised "macro" asset - and here I see the biggest modelling problem: the bubbles will be driven (parasitically, when looking through lens of your model) by global liquidity changes and such other things; yes, these are also cyclical, but their behavior changes as the structure of underlying macro mechanisms becoming more and more complex (also, the big regulators learned from past crises, so we can't expect the same crisis/liquidity bubble dynamics as in the past).
I mean - this will be more and more important for the future bubbles, and their underlying mechanisms, I'm afraid, will not be so nicely cyclical (even in log time).
So, can we be sure your model will not be lost in real macro, gold etc. "noise"?
It’s a lot to comment on so I will just comment on the gold exponential, the point there is that gold grows in price relative to fiat enough to offset inflation in the long run, roughly. So it is more stable for sure. But gold is closer to fiat than it is to Bitcoin and its price in dollars grows roughly exponentially with a CPI like average CAGR. It’s slower supply growth makes it an interesting alternative to model against, it is worth looking at Bitcoin vs gold and Bitcoin vs dollar both to see how they compare. Okay, second thing, yes global liquidity matters and we could see that reflected in other harmonics as we explore more.
Steve, great analysis!
Hey Mike, thanks!
Great Insights! TY!