$LUNC our read is broadly consistent with a bearish structure, but it’s worth tightening a few assumptions so the bias doesn’t become self-fulfilling.
You’re right that rejecting a higher resistance zone (0.000069) and failing to hold above it usually signals that buyers lacked follow-through. In that context, price drifting back toward 0.00002904 does suggest the market is still testing demand rather than building accumulation above resistance.
Where I’d be more cautious is the “path of least resistance = down” conclusion. That only holds if two things stay true:
First, if 0.00002904 actually breaks with volume, then your next downside liquidity target around 0.00001588 becomes technically reasonable. Without a clean breakdown (strong close + follow-through), though, these levels often act as liquidity grabs rather than sustained trends.
Second, the overhead liquidity between 0.000069–0.000110 doesn’t automatically mean “hard to reclaim” in a bearish sense. It can also act as a magnet if a reversal starts—crypto markets often wick into those zones quickly once momentum shifts, even after extended downtrends.
A more balanced framing would be:
Bearish continuation only confirms on a decisive breakdown below 0.00002904
Range-bound chop is still very possible between 0.000029–0.000069
Downside targets are valid, but contingent on momentum expansion, not just structure
If you want, I can so you can time entries instead of just directionally biasing the move.
#CFTCWillUseAItoReviewCryptoRegistrations #BitMineIncreasesEthereumStaking #ArthurHayes’LatestSpeech #BinanceLaunchesGoldvs.BTCTradingCompetition #StrategyBTCPurchase