Bitcoin Price Analysis: RSI Trendline Indicator Supports This Major Fundamental Analysis

It was designed by Satoshi Nakamoto in such a miner to induce deflation in the system. As the mining reward is reduced to half, it is expected that the …

Bitcoin breaks below the $4000 down mark, dragging the cryptocurrency market along with it. The total market capitalization of cryptocurrency markets also broke below the $140 billion mark.

The price of BTC at 5: 00 hours UTC on 26th March is $3965. It is trading 1.5% lower on the daily scale. Bitcoin has built strong support near $3850, a break from that could revive the bears of 2018.

Bitcoin Halving To Affect the Price?

The traders seem to be sending mixed signals. The ‘halving of Bitcoin,’ an event that will reduce the mining rewards by half occurs every four years. It was designed by Satoshi Nakamoto in such a miner to induce deflation in the system. As the mining reward is reduced to half, it is expected that the price of Bitcoin must increase to maintain parity between demand and supply.

Bitcoin halving event has occurred twice since 2009; First in Nov 2012 and the second in July 2016. The original miner reward was set at 50 BTC. The reward for mining a block currently is 12.5 BTC. The estimated halving date this time is 23 May 2020 post which the reward for mining a block will be reduced to 6.25.

Nevertheless, the price of Bitcoin during the second halving was $677. The price of Bitcoin is currently $3965. Hence, it has already risen five times its value since the previous halving but the difficulty has also increased considerably. We’re almost a year away from halving, and the miners are already at the brink of making a loss. Hence, to create a sustainable system, the price must compensate for the reduction in miner rewards.

The RSI Indicator

The RSI indicator is a momentum oscillator; The signal primarily oscillates between 70 (Over-bought) and 30 (Over-Sold). Bitcoin (RSI – 50) is currently neither in the over-bought region not in the over-sold territory. However, the long term RSI history of Bitcoin suggests that the bottoming is still a possibility.

If cue from history and Bitcoin is assumed to be in the accumulation zone, the RSI index during this period is expected to be towards the over-sold region before the beginning of a bull-season. Hence, assuming a long term bullish action, the price might see a further downtrend before towards over-sold region before the bull action really starts to take control.

RSI Bitcoin
Long Term RSI chart of BTC/USD ( Investing Scope from Trading View)

The long term optimism around Bitcoin deters the HODLER’s from changing their position. Moreover, the Hodling strategy has more often than not yielded stable returns. While the price seems to continues to consolidate around the $3900-$4000, the sideways action on Bitcoin could move either way.

Bitcoin [BTC] Price Analysis: RSI Trendline Indicator Supports This Major Fundamental Analysis
Article Name
Bitcoin [BTC] Price Analysis: RSI Trendline Indicator Supports This Major Fundamental Analysis
Bitcoin breaks below the $4000 down mark, dragging the cryptocurrency market along with it. The total market capitalization of cryptocurrency markets also broke below the $140 billion mark.
Nivesh Rustgi
Publisher Name
Publisher Logo

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Should Sexual Predators Outed by #MeToo Get Their Careers Back?

Intel fired CEO Brian Krzanich after a consensual but policy-violating relationship with an underling, but that didn’t deter an auto software company …

They’re baaaack.

At least a dozen sexual predators or harassers bounced from their jobs after being outed by #MeToo revelations have been rehired or handed new work. They include Pixar cofounder John Lasseter, whose appointment as head of a new animation arm at Skydance Media led actress Emma Thompson to bail on an upcoming Skydance movie. And resuming his stand-up comedy act after admitting to sexual misconduct, Emmy-winning comedian Louis C.K. is again trying to leave ’em laughing—and leave ’em forgetting the rest.

Intel fired CEO Brian Krzanich after a consensual but policy-violating relationship with an underling, but that didn’t deter an auto software company from putting him in charge. And Richard Meier continues designing at his eponymous architecture firm, which kept all its clients, despite allegations of harassment by its namesake from five women.

When should we forgive, and when not? BU Today asked Kabrina Chang, a Questrom School of Business clinical associate professor of markets, public policy, and law. She created the school’s Business, Society, and Ethics course and is teaching an ethics workshop in the management studies program this semester.

BU Today: What’s your reaction to prominent accused abusers seeking their careers back?

Chang: I’m skeptical of many of the returns. Returning to prominence, like Lasseter or Louis C.K., with no other progress, only perpetuates the abuse of power. They used their power to abuse women. Returning to that power enables more abuse, perhaps not by them, although that remains unknown, but by other men who see that they can harass women, take a few months off, then get right back to their career in a position of power.

You told Bloomberg Media we lack a “common formula” for adjudicating these comebacks. Can you recommend one—when should a man be forgiven and allowed to resume work, and when not?

[Anti-harassment group] Times Up suggested that there be some kind of public apology, deep introspection, and financial compensation to the victim. [Feminist author] Roxane Gay made a similar suggestion about financial compensation. When a woman is harassed or assaulted at work, the damage runs deep: not just her physical and mental health, but also fear of speaking up. The majority of the time, women are not believed or are criticized for not speaking up sooner, for what they were wearing, for what they did, etc. Women pay a steep price for speaking up for themselves.

Secondly, the perpetrator must admit to themselves what they did, own it. Then apologize, and do so legitimately and honestly.

Can you give an example of a prominent man who has made sufficient amends for his behavior, and an example of one who hasn’t?

In this interview with sitcom writer Megan Ganz, we can see the power of a forthright, honest, and thoughtful apology [from showrunner Dan Harmon, who’d mistreated her after she rejected his advances]. Does it return Ms. Ganz to her former career? No. And she is honest about why she could not have spoken earlier: she was too young in her career. She recognized that she would have been permanently derailed. But it does validate what she went through and indicate Harmon understands what he did, admits to his lack of respect for women, and his intention to better himself. She states he was the only person who could give her vindication. Are other men willing to do that? It doesn’t seem like there are many.

When Louis C.K. did his first comeback set in the Village, some of his supporters commented that “he did his time.” But he didn’t. A few months off from work, retreating to the comfort of your home, is not incarceration, it’s not adjudication, it’s not a jury of your peers judging you for your actions, or an admission. It’s time off.

Add to that the professional settings and networks: the women who were victimized by Louis C.K. stayed away from projects that his manager was working on, they missed opportunities because his manager told them to stop talking about what C.K. did to them. The impact on a woman’s career can be profound; some are permanently derailed. Look at Harvey Weinstein’s victims. Some never regained the stature or success they had before he abused or harassed them. Financial compensation will not put them in the position they would be in had the abuse/harassment never happened, but it is recognition and validation.

Have you discussed this topic in any of your classes, and does the reaction differ by gender?

I have. For many women, the issue is power: men used their power to assault, abuse, or harass women, and they should not be able to return to a position of power. A few had difficulty reconciling men returning to a career when their victim has been professionally damaged in unknown and probably permanent ways with their innate sense of forgiveness. They could not get there.

Do you think most of these men will be able to return to power, given Emma Thompson’s observation that, at least with serial predators, women won’t want to work for them?

Most women need their jobs. In many circumstances women don’t have a choice. The women at Skydance Media didn’t. So, yes, I do think many will return to positions of power and many women will have no choice but to stay in their job. Why should a woman have to leave a job she worked hard to succeed in, a job she loves, or even a job that simply pays her bills, because a man who has sexually harassed her has been hired? To think that hiring someone with that past won’t affect all women in that business is at best naïve, at worst purposefully ignorant. It puts the women in that company in an untenable and unfair position, prioritizing the man’s career over theirs. I don’t see how there can be any other result. Skydance Media says they will watch Lasseter, that they know what they have gotten into. That’s good for them and it sounds like they are trying to not get sued. But what do their actions say to the women who work for them?

Are you optimistic that we’ve turned a permanent corner in business thanks to #MeToo? Or is the past prologue, the future better predicted by the “hundreds of years of sexual harassment and repression of women” that you discussed with Bloomberg?

I’m optimistic about women being empowered to speak up, knowing that they are not alone, and knowing that more women can openly and publicly support them when they do come forward. This is a tremendous development. I am not as optimistic that management knows yet how to handle this. Women are not asking for special treatment, or kid gloves. I have read some commentary that it is hard now to know how to manage women, that male executives no longer feel comfortable with a woman in their office, mentoring women, or feel nervous and stressed when men and women have to travel together for work. Why? All women want is to be treated with equal respect; as Ms. Ganz says: the same respect shown men. That shouldn’t be hard to do.

+ Comments

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Against Tesla Regarding Model 3 Production

It was also an extremely difficult period of time for Tesla, and Elon Musk said it was the most challenging of his career. Production hell indeed.

Published on March 25th, 2019 | by Zachary Shahan


March 25th, 2019 by Zachary Shahan

Full disclosure: I’m a Tesla shareholder, and I did not feel misled by Tesla statements regarding Model 3 production, so I did not think a class-action lawsuit against Tesla on that topic made sense.

Apparently, a judge has now concluded the same thing (for the second time) on this case. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of California has concluded that the plaintiffs essentially ignored “repeated warnings about Model 3 production risks” and it’s not Tesla’s fault that they felt misled.

Aside from the boilerplate legal terms Tesla, like other companies, uses regarding “forward-looking statements” and such, my opinion is that Elon Musk is generally super extra exceedingly clear about production risks much of the time. With regards to the Model 3 production ramp, he explained numerous times that even one unforeseen supply problem or production bug could slow down the whole process, and that it takes time and is highly unpredictable when the company can get through all of those. Some critics get annoyed at how Musk will explain these kinds of things in an elementary way, but I think that’s important for communicating to normal people (who might not know much about manufacturing but might have invested in Tesla) that there are significant risks with company production and sales forecasts. The boilerplate forward-looking statements fine print isn’t enough if you want people to really be cautious.

Furthermore, Musk repeatedly used the term “production hell,” including many times in the timeframe the plaintiffs focused on. If that wasn’t a super strong indication that problems could arise, I don’t know what terminology could have been better. And note that this was after a Model X production ramp in which Tesla went through “production hell” and had trouble getting production forecasts right for several months.

Judge Breyer also referenced Musk’s use of the term “production hell” and came to the same conclusions. Whether the judge followed all of Tesla’s warnings and cautions in real-time or not, looking back on these warnings must have made the conclusion of this case exceedingly clear.

Naturally, it’s not enjoyable to lose money on the stock market, and the Model 3 ramp was a tough one for investors. It was also an extremely difficult period of time for Tesla, and Elon Musk said it was the most challenging of his career. Production hell indeed. In any case, you’d have to completely ignore much of Musk’s commentary on this to think that he knowingly misled any investors on how quickly Tesla could get to production of 5,000 cars per week.

In the end, Tesla crushed numerous production and sales records with the Model 3, and does so nearly on a weekly basis to this day. There is no other mass-market electric vehicle at this level in the world, and I’m not sure any auto company in history has ever scaled up overall company production as quickly as Tesla has. Whether or not you think Elon Musk and Tesla were overly ambitious with their production targets, if you look at their quarterly sales growth, it’s staggering and nearly unbelievable that they achieved what they did so quickly. Woe to us who thought that Tesla could have broken records in an even bigger way — I count myself among them, even as I am in awe at what Tesla has accomplished.

I assume this second rejection from the judge means this lawsuit is toast. However, if anything new and substantial comes up on this story, we’ll most likely come back to it again.

Witnessing so many blatant attempts to smear Tesla, lower its share price, and benefit from negative coverage of the clean energy and electric vehicle company, it is tempting to think this lawsuit was a part of all of that, but it may not be — we actually don’t know. Perhaps these investors are completely disconnected from those efforts and simply felt misled by Tesla production forecasts/targets. This is a reminder, though, that boiler-plate corporate statements like the following mean something and should be taken into consideration:

“This communication contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. These forward-looking statements are based on current expectations, estimates and forecasts, as well as the beliefs and assumptions of Tesla’s management, and are subject to risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. Many factors could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those anticipated, including: risks and uncertainties discussed in this communication and those matters described under the sections entitled “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” of Tesla’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, subsequent Reports on Form 8-K, the Schedule TO relating to the offer and other filings Tesla makes with the SEC. We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements and you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. We do not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statements.”

Tags:California, Elon Musk, lawsuits, Tesla, Tesla Investors, Tesla lawsuits, Tesla Model 3, Tesla Model 3 production, Tesla shareholders, Tesla stock

About the Author

Zachary Shahan Zach is tryin’ to help society help itself (and other species). He spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as its director and chief editor. He’s also the president of Important Media and the director/founder of EV Obsession and Solar Love. Zach is recognized globally as an electric vehicle, solar energy, and energy storage expert. He has presented about cleantech at conferences in India, the UAE, Ukraine, Poland, Germany, the Netherlands, the USA, and Canada. Zach has long-term investments in TSLA, FSLR, SPWR, SEDG, & ABB — after years of covering solar and EVs, he simply has a lot of faith in these particular companies and feels like they are good cleantech companies to invest in. But he offers no professional investment advice and would rather not be responsible for you losing money, so don’t jump to conclusions.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Robot Authors Not a Threat Yet

In a commentary for the Guardian, Poole chided OpenAI, a nonprofit lab backed by Elon Musk and other tech entrepreneurs that just unveiled its AI …

Totally machine-generated prose came a step closer to reality with the announcement of an artificial intelligence that could produce news stories or fiction — but writers and reporters don’t have much to fear just yet, author Steven Poole argues.

In a commentary for the Guardian, Poole chided OpenAI, a nonprofit lab backed by Elon Musk and other tech entrepreneurs that just unveiled its AI called GPT2 — for suggesting it was too dangerous to release lest it created “deepfakes for text.”

“Let’s first take a step back,” Poole argued. “GPT2 is just using methods of statistical analysis, trained on huge amounts of human-written text…to predict what ought to come next. This probabilistic approach is how Google Translate works, and also the method behind Gmail’s automatic replies.”

“It can be eerily good, but it is not as intelligent as, say, a bee,” Poole wrote. “Right now, novelists don’t seem to have much to fear.”

As a news reporter, GPT2 is “rather Trumpian,” Poole added — garbling context that its creators admitted is a “world-modelling failures… the model sometimes writes about fires happening underwater.”

“The excessive hype surrounding the GPT2 text generator, at least, is a symptom that we have to some degree internalized the philistine functionalism of Silicon Valley, according to which everything is simply data,” Poole argued.

“But writing is not data. It is a means of expression, which implies that you have something to express. A non-sentient computer program has nothing to express.”

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Vitalik Buterin: cripto deve deixar para trás o individualismo dos primeiros Cypherpunks

O co-fundador do Ethereum (ETH) Vitalik Buterin argumentou que a comunidade de criptos deveria evoluir para além do individualismo associado …

O co-fundador do Ethereum (ETH) Vitalik Buterin argumentou que a comunidade de criptos deveria evoluir para além do individualismo associado aos seus primeiros dias de cypherpunk e aproveitar a tecnologia para criar sistemas novos, equitativos e inovadores com impacto social positivo.

Buterin fez seus comentários durante um discurso na conferência RadicalxChange em Detroit, Michigan, em 24 de março, informou a BreakerMag em 25 de março.

Buterin havia iniciado conjuntamente a RadicalxChange com o economista Glen Weyl, coautor do livro “Radical Markets“, que argumenta a favor de repensar os mercados dentro de uma perspectiva liberal encorajada e radicalizada como um antídoto à neorreação, populismo e protecionismo.

Em seu discurso, Buterin argumentou que os defensores e desenvolvedores de criptomoedas de hoje deveriam evoluir para longe do feroz individualismo do movimento cypherpunk e de um foco excessivo na maximização da autonomia e da privacidade.

O dinheiro, ele argumentou, é fundamental e profundamente social, e o potencial de criptomoedas e blockchain e da tecnologia é avançar uma agenda coletiva explicitamente política. Isso, ele argumentou, inclui repensar os modelos de governança social, formalizar a identidade e a participação na comunidade, facilitar o financiamento equitativo dos bens públicos e reformular as estruturas de propriedade.

Buterin criou criptomoedas e blockchain – e mais fundamentalmente, o uso criativo e astuto da tecnologia para lidar com objetivos político-econômicos concretos – como uma saída para o impasse contemporâneo. Os críticos do status quo, afirmou, defendem tanto o “estatismo centralmente planejado ao estilo dos anos 1950” à esquerda, quanto o “capitalismo de livre mercado com um pouco mais de bem-estar” entre os centristas. “Ambas as ideias”, argumentou ele, representam “becos sem saída intelectuais”.

Notando que a invenção do Bitcoin representa um movimento poderoso contra a hegemonia dos bancos centrais e estatais, ele propôs que plataformas inteligentes de contrato como a Ethereum, bem como blockchains com foco na governança, podem ajudar a realizar plenamente seu impulso revolucionário originário.

Como o Cointelegraph relatou, Satoshi Nakamoto – o inventor anônimo e mitológico do Bitcoin – incorporou notoriamente o bloco da gênese da moeda com uma manchete do New York Times de janeiro de 2009 sobre o resgate bancário do Reino Unido.

Os desafios de expandir criativamente a visão da Nakomoto foram reconhecidos por Buterin em um discurso recente, no qual ele observou que as aplicações não-financeiras de blockchain continuam a enfrentar mais dificuldades para ganhar tração. Entre seus compromissos pessoais, ele disse, estava redesenhando a tecnologia existente e o cenário de poder, criando um ecossistema descentralizado que permitiria que os jogadores menores competissem com os monopólios estabelecidos.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts