Bitcoin's failed mega-pump: chronicle of a false prophecy
A viral post predicted Bitcoin at $119,000 within three months. Instead, the price crashed, and the author admitted to a 'downward pump'.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Promised Bitcoin at $119,000, delivered a crash
$119,000. That was the number. A message on an investment forum claimed Bitcoin would hit that mark in "2 months max 3," stating all charts were "pregnant" with potential and a "cumulative double triangle" was "about to give birth." The prediction failed: prices plummeted, and the original poster later conceded, "There was a big Pump, but downward."
The story of that post and the 76 replies that trinc mirrors almost any crypto euphoria cycle. A chart, a promise of imminent wealth, and a community split between those who laugh and those who, despite skepticism, can't fully dismiss it.
What the big Bitcoin pump prediction said
The initial premise mixed technical jargon with faith. It cited a "cumulative double triangle" ready to break, "beastly" accumulation, and a blue dot marking liftoff. The target: $119,000, trinc by a dip and a rebound in 2025. According to the author, this rise would happen within three months maximum.
Most responses were mocking. One user retorted that $119,000 was "a shit, right?", while another joked that before the anticipated takeoff, a specific team would win the Champions League and a highly awaited video game would release. General laughter didn't hide underlying doubt: if the market keeps rising unchecked, the problem grows when it bursts.
Triangles, scripts, and drawing certainty
One widely quoted moment parodied technical analysis. A participant claimed to have applied "a script based on Khepson candlestick lines with transverse prediction curves," which, overlaid on the triangle, indicated a "short-term hyper-explosion." Even reducing the increase margin by 25%, momentum remained "unstoppable." The attached chart was apparently a masterpiece of dry humor.
Underlying skepticism was summarized by another comment: relying on past lines and trends to predict asset direction admits, knowingly or not, that everything is manipulated. If a product's evolution depends on drawings, it's bad news.
From pump to crash: the fall that actually peine
As messages accumulated, the tone shifted. References to $40,000 and $30,000 as risk levels replaced $119,000. Someone asked if a crash below support would occur within three months. Another noted the market was full of people "trapped," waiting to sell immediately, making sustained rises difficult.
Prices indeed collapsed. The original poster returned with a twist: "There was a big Pump, but downward." Then reverted to initial rhetoric, calling skeptics "Pharisees" and demanding they bow before the "great phallic pump." The prophecy recycled itself: the pump was "coming soon," just "a few days away."
The four-year cycle and halvings
Amidst noise, one sober contribution stood out: the four-year cycle and halvings. This argument posits that Bitcoin's historical highs occurred in 2013, 2017, and 2021, suggesting no major ceiling until 2025. While admitting nothing is predictable, this rule has held best so far.
Another message suggested Bitcoin wasn't rising because institutions and whales were holding liquidity, waiting for weaker investors to exit. Fake orders, price saws, and calculated agony. The idea that remaining funds are "smart money"—engineers, officials, well-positioned individuals—explained why there were no runs... and why the rally never truly arrived.
Coinbase, Binance, and exchange bankruptcy antiestéticars
Towards the end, focus shifted from price to platform security. A warning about "bad rumors regarding Coinbase" emerged, noting things could get complicated. Reactions were immediate: one user announced switching to Binance, declaring their "crypto ruins" were theirs alone. Another stated they wouldn't leave "a single cent" on exchanges.
Distrust of intermediaries may be the most tangible lesson. When assets don't rise, the question shifts from how much I'll earn to where exactly my remaining holdings are stored.
With hindsight, the $119,000 prediction remains what it was: an unsupported promise. The four-year cycle is still the most cited hypothesis, though unproven law. And the original poster, lest anyone doubted, warned he'd return "once in a lifetime."
$119,000. That was the number. A message on an investment forum claimed Bitcoin would hit that mark in "2 months max 3," stating all charts were "pregnant" with potential and a "cumulative double triangle" was "about to give birth." The prediction failed: prices plummeted, and the original poster later conceded, "There was a big Pump, but downward."
The story of that post and the 76 replies that trinc mirrors almost any crypto euphoria cycle. A chart, a promise of imminent wealth, and a community split between those who laugh and those who, despite skepticism, can't fully dismiss it.
What the big Bitcoin pump prediction said
The initial premise mixed technical jargon with faith. It cited a "cumulative double triangle" ready to break, "beastly" accumulation, and a blue dot marking liftoff. The target: $119,000, trinc by a dip and a rebound in 2025. According to the author, this rise would happen within three months maximum.
Most responses were mocking. One user retorted that $119,000 was "a shit, right?", while another joked that before the anticipated takeoff, a specific team would win the Champions League and a highly awaited video game would release. General laughter didn't hide underlying doubt: if the market keeps rising unchecked, the problem grows when it bursts.
Triangles, scripts, and drawing certainty
One widely quoted moment parodied technical analysis. A participant claimed to have applied "a script based on Khepson candlestick lines with transverse prediction curves," which, overlaid on the triangle, indicated a "short-term hyper-explosion." Even reducing the increase margin by 25%, momentum remained "unstoppable." The attached chart was apparently a masterpiece of dry humor.
Underlying skepticism was summarized by another comment: relying on past lines and trends to predict asset direction admits, knowingly or not, that everything is manipulated. If a product's evolution depends on drawings, it's bad news.
From pump to crash: the fall that actually peine
As messages accumulated, the tone shifted. References to $40,000 and $30,000 as risk levels replaced $119,000. Someone asked if a crash below support would occur within three months. Another noted the market was full of people "trapped," waiting to sell immediately, making sustained rises difficult.
Prices indeed collapsed. The original poster returned with a twist: "There was a big Pump, but downward." Then reverted to initial rhetoric, calling skeptics "Pharisees" and demanding they bow before the "great phallic pump." The prophecy recycled itself: the pump was "coming soon," just "a few days away."
The four-year cycle and halvings
Amidst noise, one sober contribution stood out: the four-year cycle and halvings. This argument posits that Bitcoin's historical highs occurred in 2013, 2017, and 2021, suggesting no major ceiling until 2025. While admitting nothing is predictable, this rule has held best so far.
Another message suggested Bitcoin wasn't rising because institutions and whales were holding liquidity, waiting for weaker investors to exit. Fake orders, price saws, and calculated agony. The idea that remaining funds are "smart money"—engineers, officials, well-positioned individuals—explained why there were no runs... and why the rally never truly arrived.
Coinbase, Binance, and exchange bankruptcy antiestéticars
Towards the end, focus shifted from price to platform security. A warning about "bad rumors regarding Coinbase" emerged, noting things could get complicated. Reactions were immediate: one user announced switching to Binance, declaring their "crypto ruins" were theirs alone. Another stated they wouldn't leave "a single cent" on exchanges.
Distrust of intermediaries may be the most tangible lesson. When assets don't rise, the question shifts from how much I'll earn to where exactly my remaining holdings are stored.
With hindsight, the $119,000 prediction remains what it was: an unsupported promise. The four-year cycle is still the most cited hypothesis, though unproven law. And the original poster, lest anyone doubted, warned he'd return "once in a lifetime."
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (76 replies).
More summaries
-
Michael Saylor and the 17,000 bitcoins he plans to 'burn' when he dies
A viral tweet claimed Michael Saylor would burn 17,000 bitcoins to create a supply shock. The reality is less explosive: he plans to destroy his private keys upon his death.
-
Binance offers 45% fee discount with referral code
Binance promises a 45% discount on fees by combining a 20% referral bonus and a 25% discount for paying with BNB, compared to Coinbase Pro's 0.5% fee.
-
Bitcoin's predicted doom still hasn't materialized after 1,364 days
Bitcoin trades above $99 while the total-ruin forecast marks 1,364 days unfulfilled. The strategy of investing 100 euros a month is running out of steam.
-
US House Committee Advances Crypto Tax Amnesty Step
The US Ways and Means Committee approved a 0% penalty on the first $25,000 of unpaid annual crypto taxes. Here is what it means.
-
Crypto and Spain's Tax Agency: Declare or Ignore?
Debate on declaring crypto to the Spanish tax authority (Hacienda), covering Form 720, swaps, the €10,000 threshold, and investor non-compliance.
-
Ethereum explained: Ether, gas fees, and why they matter
Ethereum is a Turing-complete blockchain where ether fuels transactions. Gas fees dictate costs, while supply remains indefinite unlike Bitcoin.