2026-01-11 13:25:38

That so-called "4chan BTC predictor" circulating around? It's not accurate—it's genuinely fabricated.

The core issue lies in the methodology. The 1064-day pattern everyone keeps citing appears neat and orderly, but that's precisely the problem. Those cycle dates didn't emerge organically from market data; they were reverse-engineered. Dates got cherry-picked and rounded until the numbers aligned with a predetermined pattern.

When you pull the actual historical data and cross-reference traditional Bitcoin cycle markers, the picture falls apart. The clean intervals don't match real price action, resistance levels, or on-chain metrics. It's classic numerology dressed up as technical analysis.

What we're seeing is confirmation bias in action—people find patterns that confirm what they already believe, then build narratives around selective data points. The crypto market does exhibit cyclical behavior, sure, but legitimate cycle analysis should be grounded in verifiable on-chain data, macro events, and consistent historical benchmarks, not retrofitted timelines.

Before anyone anchors their trading decisions to these predictions, it's worth pulling the actual numbers yourself.

BTC-0,98%

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

9 Likes

Reward
9
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

AirdropHunter9000

· 3h ago

It's the same old trick; every time, someone falls for this kind of number game.

View OriginalReply0

LightningClicker

· 01-11 13:54

It's the same reverse engineering trick again; the data is just cherry-picked to look good, as if we are all just leeks.

View OriginalReply0

MoonRocketman

· 01-11 13:51

Haha, is it that 1064-day cycle theory again? I've seen through it long ago; it's just forcing data together, a classic case of reverse engineering. On-chain indicators simply don't match up; RSI momentum and Bollinger Bands all tell different stories. This isn't technical analysis at all; it's numerology disguised as Fibonacci. Confirmation bias is deadly. You keep looking until you find what you want to see, then get excited for half a day. The real launch window should be aligned with macro events and real on-chain data, not reconstructed timelines. I suggest everyone verify the data themselves and not get locked into positions based on this "low Earth orbit prophecy."

View OriginalReply0

DeepRabbitHole

· 01-11 13:48

Another reverse-engineered "prediction," hilarious. Forcing the dates until they form a pattern—that's a trick I've seen too many times.

View OriginalReply0

EntryPositionAnalyst

· 01-11 13:48

Here comes the cycle theory that tricks people again, I see through it Reverse engineering this set of tricks is indeed ruthless; just by stuffing data to the brim, you can spin a story

View OriginalReply0

ImpermanentPhobia

· 01-11 13:41

Coming back with this again? The 1064-day cycle should have been exposed long ago. Is reverse engineering data interesting? Haha

View OriginalReply0