One of the first lessons you learn in technical analysis kindergarten is the principle of polarity.
That is, former support turns into resistance, and vice versa.
The thinking here is that when buyers absorb all the overhead supply looming at resistance, the market has nowhere to go but up. When the market breaks out and retests that former resistance, it turns into support on the way down.
This language of supply and demand is true everywhere, but particularly so in cryptocurrencies, where there are no earnings, dividends, and discounted cash flow models to dilute the necessity of price.
So, with this all said, is this a textbook example of polarity taking place in Bitcoin?
But as always, we need to remain objective in our approach and look for cracks in our thesis.
It's one of many reasons why we always play devil's advocate; that is, collating a list of data points that go against our thesis and would subsequently make us change our perspective.
Let's not forget, flipping our approach as new evidence comes in is not only an advantage, but in public markets, it's a necessity.
So with that said, what if this isn't as clean a breakout as we initially intended?
As we laid out in yesterday's call, if Bitcoin is in the 50,000's, we need to be aggressively long crypto.
There's just no way around it.
Above 47,000, the bias is clearly higher toward the first half highs:
The projected move into the 60,000's roughly represents a 30% move. If we know anything about the altcoins, it's that many of them are a double, if not a triple in that environment...
We're already seeing that leadership emerge under the surface, with the altcoins reasserting their former leadership at their pre-covid highs on a relative basis: