Real-Time BNB Signal Analytics
Real-Time BNB Signal Analytics
Here is the feature article written in the persona of Julian Vance.
*
# The Obituary for the Bitcoin Bull Market Has Been Written. Is the Author Credible?
The declaration arrived with the blunt force of a market order. "THE BULL RUN IN BITCOIN IS OVER!" The words, capitalized for effect, came from Jon Glover, an Elliott Wave analyst and CIO at Ledn. For a market still nursing its wounds from a sharp drop from over $126,000, this wasn't just analysis; it was an epitaph.
Glover’s call, made in October 2025, wasn't just a vague premonition. It was specific, as outlined in Bitcoin Price Could Collapse to $70K or Lower as Bull Market Is Over: Elliott Wave Expert - Yahoo Finance. He pinpointed the completion of a "five-wave upward move," the textbook climax of a bull cycle according to his chosen methodology. His forecast is for a prolonged winter, a bear market dragging on until late 2026 with the price of Bitcoin potentially revisiting the $70,000-$80,000 range. The drop was significant, shaving off nearly 18%—or 17.46% to be exact—from its peak before finding a temporary floor.
The immediate reaction in the derivatives market suggests Glover isn't shouting into the void. On Deribit, the premiums on put options, which are essentially insurance policies against a price drop, are trading notably higher than calls through the September 2026 expiry. This is known as 'put skew' (a situation where demand for bearish bets outstrips bullish ones), and it's a clear, quantifiable signal that professional traders are, at the very least, hedging against the exact scenario Glover describes.
So, we have a loud declaration from a technical analyst and a nervous tremor in the options market. Case closed? Not quite. The credibility of the prediction rests entirely on the credibility of the tool used to make it. And that tool, Elliott Wave Theory, is where the clean narrative gets complicated.
To be fair to Glover, his forecast aligns neatly with Bitcoin's cyclical history. The bull market that just ended began in early 2023 when Bitcoin was trading below $20,000. Historically, Bitcoin has followed a predictable, almost seasonal rhythm tied to its "halving" events—the quadrennial reduction in its new supply issuance. The pattern suggests a bull market run-up, a peak roughly 18 months post-halving (the last one was April 2024), followed by a protracted bear market. Glover’s timeline fits this historical model almost perfectly.
This is where Elliott Wave Theory enters the picture. Conceived in 1938, it posits that the seemingly chaotic movements of the stock market are actually a reflection of a natural, repetitive rhythm in human psychology. It’s all about waves of optimism and pessimism, unfolding in a predictable fractal pattern. An upward-trending market, the theory goes, moves in five waves (three up, two down), followed by a three-wave correction. Glover is simply saying we’ve finished the five and are now starting the three.
This is an elegant, almost poetic, way to view market dynamics. It transforms a messy chart of candlesticks and volume bars into a structured narrative of social mood. But this is also its fundamental weakness. Elliott Wave Theory often feels less like a GPS and more like trying to navigate by the stars. The constellations are certainly there if you look for them, but whether they form a bear or a bull often depends on who is drawing the lines. The theory is notoriously subjective.
And this is where I have to pause. I've spent years building and stress-testing quantitative models, and any system that relies so heavily on subjective pattern recognition—where the rulebook is more of a guidebook—is inherently fragile. Two seasoned Elliott Wave practitioners can look at the identical Bitcoin chart and come away with two completely different wave counts, one bullish and one bearish. Both can claim to be following the rules.
But this raises a critical question: is the theory predicting the market, or are analysts simply fitting the theory to the market's existing mood? How can a model be falsified if any failed prediction can be re-explained as a misinterpretation of the 'wave count'?
While the debate around technical analysis rages on, there's a separate, more tangible cloud hanging over Bitcoin: its environmental footprint. The network’s Proof-of-Work mechanism is a voracious consumer of energy. The 2025 Cambridge report pegs its annual electricity usage at 138 TWh, roughly equivalent to that of a small nation, with a carbon footprint to match.
Now, the data shows some progress. The same report indicates that over half of this energy—52.4% to be precise—comes from sustainable sources. Proponents make a compelling, if complex, argument that Bitcoin mining can actually stabilize green energy grids by acting as a "buyer of last resort" for surplus power. This is a non-trivial point, central to the discussion in Professor Coin: Bitcoin, Energy and the Future of Sustainable Crypto - Decrypt. However, the optics remain challenging, especially when contrasted with Ethereum, which slashed its energy consumption by an estimated 99.9% after its transition to Proof-of-Stake in 2022.
The environmental debate adds another layer of noise to the price signal. It creates a persistent headwind of negative sentiment and regulatory risk that has nothing to do with halving cycles or wave counts. Can a purely technical model like Elliott Wave effectively account for an external variable as potent as a potential government crackdown on energy-intensive mining? Or does it simply categorize the resulting price action as just another "corrective wave," absorbing the new information into its pre-existing pattern without acknowledging the cause?
The current market sentiment, reflected in those pricey put options, is likely a cocktail of inputs. It’s the historical echo of the post-halving top. It’s the real fear of macroeconomic headwinds. And it’s the simmering, low-grade anxiety over the network’s environmental and regulatory future. Glover's call may prove to be correct, but attributing its accuracy solely to the predictive power of a 1930s-era theory on crowd psychology seems like a stretch. It’s more likely that a subjective theory is being used to confirm a bias that the broader market is already feeling.
Ultimately, Jon Glover’s declaration is a symptom, not a diagnosis. He may well be right about the direction of the Bitcoin price, but the reason might have less to do with the mystical completion of a fifth wave and more to do with a confluence of simpler, quantifiable factors: a historical cycle reaching its statistical endpoint, traders de-risking as evidenced by options data, and a market that has run up over 600% in less than three years. Gravity, in markets, remains undefeated. Elliott Wave Theory is a compelling narrative framework, but it's a mistake to confuse a good story with a causal mechanism. The market was already cooling; the theory just gave it a name.
