Connect with us

Price Analysis April 1: BTC, ETH, XRP, BCH, BSV, LTC, EOS, BNB, XTZ, LEO

Price Analysis April 1: BTC, ETH, XRP, BCH, BSV, LTC, EOS, BNB, XTZ, LEO

Published

4 years ago

on

After a strong bounce from key support levels, many cryptocurrencies are now struggling to break above the 20-day EMA.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average had its worst first quarter on record. Compared to that, Bitcoin only fell about 10% over the same period, which shows clear outperformance. The resilience of Bitcoin (BTC) in the current crisis shows that it has arrived on the big scene and that it can weather a storm better than some of the traditional asset classes. This is likely to attract several institutional players to Bitcoin.

Now, what can we hope for during the second quarter? Bitcoin has a very important halving event coming up next month. This has been positive for the price action during the previous two halvings. This time, however, analysts are divided. Nonetheless, the second quarter, barring the dip in 2018, has always closed in the green. This shows that cyclically, Bitcoin’s price is likely to rise in this quarter.

Daily cryptocurrency market performance

Daily cryptocurrency market performance. Source: Coin360

Another positive is that crypto traders are buying the dips instead of panicking and dumping their positions. A report by Coinbase shows that there was record-breaking trading activity during and after the crash on March 12. Bitcoin’s trading surged to six times the average during this period and the number of active traders also swelled to 3 1/2 times the average. 

While the buyers are keen to enter on dips, is the buying interest sustaining at higher levels or will the cryptocurrencies revisit their recent lows? Let’s study the charts to find out.

BTC/USD

The bears are not allowing Bitcoin (BTC) to sustain above the 20-day exponential moving average. This is a negative sign. Both the weighted and exponential moving averages are sloping down and the relative strength index is in the negative zone, which suggests that bears have the upper hand.

BTC–USD daily chart

BTC–USD daily chart. Source: Tradingview

If the BTC/USD pair turns down from the current levels and plummets below the support at $5,660.47, a retest of the critical long-term support at $5,000 is possible. Therefore, the stops on the long positions can be kept at $5,600.

Conversely, if the pair turns around from the current levels or bounces off the support at $5,660.47, the bulls will try to carry it to the stiff psychological resistance at $7,000. A breakout of this level will be a huge positive and is likely to result in a rally to $9,000. Though the 50-day simple moving average at $7,837 might act as a resistance, we expect it to be crossed.

ETH/USD

Ether (ETH) has formed a descending triangle pattern, which will complete on a breakdown and close (UTC time) below $117.09. This setup has a target objective of $81.78, but we anticipate the bulls to aggressively defend the critical support at $84.25.

ETH–USD daily chart

ETH–USD daily chart. Source: Tradingview

Conversely, if the bulls can drive the price above the 20-day EMA, the ETH/USD pair can retest the overhead resistance at $155.612.

A breakout of $155.612 is likely to start a new uptrend that can carry the pair to the 50-day SMA at $194 and above it to $250. Therefore, traders can initiate long positions as suggested in our earlier analysis.

XRP/USD

XRP is struggling to scale and sustain above the overhead resistance at $0.17468. This shows that the bears are defending this level. If the price turns down from the current levels, the bears will try to sink it below $0.16. If successful, a drop to $0.1275 is possible.

XRP–USD daily chart

XRP–USD daily chart. Source: Tradingview

However, the 20-day EMA has flattened out and the RSI is just below the midpoint, which suggests a balance between buyers and sellers.

The advantage will tilt in favor of the bulls if the XRP/USD pair breaks above $0.18867, which is the intraday high of March 27. Above this level, a move to the 50-day SMA at $0.216 and above it to $0.25 is possible. 

Traders who own long positions can keep a protective stop loss at $0.143. The stops can be trailed higher to $0.16 if the pair breaks out above $0.19.

BCH/USD

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) has been clinging to the 20-day EMA for the past few days but has failed to scale above it. This shows that the bears are aggressively defending the 20-day EMA. If the price turns down from the current levels, a drop to $200 or below it, to $166, is possible.

BCH–USD daily chart

BCH–USD daily chart. Source: Tradingview

Conversely, if the bulls can propel the BCH/USD pair above the 20-day EMA, a move to $247.95 is likely. A breakout of this level is likely to result in a rally to the 50-day SMA at $294 and above it to $350. Therefore, we retain the buy recommendation given in the previous analysis.

BSV/USD

Bitcoin SV (BSV) bounced strongly from the support at $146.96 on March 30, but the bulls could not sustain the price above the 20-day EMA at $167.82. This suggests that the bears are aggressively defending the zone between the 20-day EMA and the horizontal resistance at $185.87.

BSV–USD daily chart

BSV–USD daily chart. Source: Tradingview

If the price turns down from the current levels and breaks below the support at $146.96, a drop to $120 is possible. Therefore, the traders can protect their long positions with the stop loss at $146.

Conversely, if the bulls can carry the price above $185.87, a move to $260 is possible. There is resistance at the 50-day SMA, but we expect it to be crossed.

LTC/USD

Litecoin (LTC) is stuck between the 20-day EMA and the support at $35.8582. If the bulls can push the price above the 20-day EMA at $40.69, a retest of $43.67 is possible. A break above this will signal the start of a new uptrend. 

LTC–USD daily chart

LTC–USD daily chart. Source: Tradingview

Therefore, the traders can buy on a close (UTC time) above $43.67 and keep a stop loss at $35. The first target objective is a rally to the 50-day SMA at $54.16 — and above it, the up move can extend to $63.8769. 

However, if the price turns down either from the 20-day EMA or $43.67 and plummets below $35.8582, a drop to $30 is likely.

EOS/USD

EOS has extended its stay inside the $2.0632-$2.4001 range. After this tight range trading, we anticipate a range expansion within the next few days. It is difficult to predict the direction of the breakout. Hence, it is better to wait for the breakout to happen before taking a trade.

EOS–USD daily chart

EOS–USD daily chart. Source: Tradingview

If the EOS/USD pair breaks above the overhead resistance at $2.4001, the advantage will tilt in favor of the bulls. Above this level, a move to the 50-day SMA at $3.20 or above it, to $3.86, is likely. Hence, we have retained the buy proposed in an earlier analysis.

Conversely, if the range expands to the downside and slips below the support at $2.0632, a drop to $1.7213 is possible.

BNB/USD

Binance Coin (BNB) is currently stuck between the 20-day EMA and the horizontal support at $10.8427. If the bulls push the price above the 20-day EMA, a move to $13.65 or above it, to the downtrend line, is possible.

BNB–USD daily chart

BNB–USD daily chart. Source: Tradingview

We anticipate the bears to defend the zone between $13.65 and the downtrend line. A break above this zone will be the first sign that the advantage is tilting in favor of the bulls.

However, if the BNB/USD pair turns down from $13.65 or the downtrend line, it might spend some more time in consolidation. The pair will turn negative on a break below $10.8427. 

XTZ/USD

Tezos (XTZ) has been trading between $1.4453 and $1.955 for the past few days. Though the bulls have managed to defend the support at $1.4453, they have not been able to push the price above the 20-day EMA, which suggests a lack of buying at higher levels.

XTZ–USD daily chart

XTZ–USD daily chart. Source: Tradingview

If the bulls again fail to scale the price above the 20-day EMA, a retest of $1.4453 is likely. If this support breaks, it will complete a small descending triangle pattern, which can drag the price toward the recent lows.

Conversely, if the XTZ/USD pair rises above the 20-day EMA, a move to $1.955 is possible. The pair will pick up momentum on a break above the downtrend line. 

Therefore, the traders can wait for the price to close (UTC time) above the downtrend line before initiating long positions. The stops can be kept at $1.40 and the first target objective is the 50-day SMA at $2.43 — and if this is crossed, the next level to watch out for is $3.20.

LEO/USD

Unus Sed Leo (LEO) broke out and closed (UTC time) above $1.04, thus completing the inverse head and shoulders pattern on March 30. This triggered our buy recommendation given in an earlier analysis. 

LEO–USD daily chart

LEO–USD daily chart. Source: Tradingview

Though the bulls have maintained the price above the breakout level of $1.04 for the past two days, the failure to run up shows hesitation at higher levels. If the LEO/USD pair fails to pick up momentum, the bears are likely to sink it back below $1.04.

If the price slides below $1.04, the first support is at the 20-day EMA at $1.016, and the second at $1. If the bulls fail to defend these support levels, the pair is likely to dip to the 50-day SMA at $0.987 or below it, to $0.95. We suggest traders trail the stops on the long positions to $0.097.

The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Cointelegraph. Every investment and trading move involves risk. You should conduct your own research when making a decision.

Market data is provided by HitBTC exchange.

Read More

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Government

Supreme Court Rules Public Officials May Block Their Constituents On Social Media

Supreme Court Rules Public Officials May Block Their Constituents On Social Media

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis…

Published

2 hours ago

on

March 17, 2024

By

Supreme Court Rules Public Officials May Block Their Constituents On Social Media

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Public officials may block people on social media in certain situations, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on March 15.

People leave the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Feb. 21, 2024. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

At the same time, the court held that public officials who post about topics pertaining to their work on their personal social media accounts are acting on behalf of the government. But such officials can be found liable for violating the First Amendment only when they have been properly authorized by the government to communicate on its behalf.

The case is important because nowadays public officials routinely reach out to voters through social media on the same pages where they discuss personal matters unrelated to government business.

“When a government official posts about job-related topics on social media, it can be difficult to tell whether the speech is official or private,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the nation’s highest court.

The case is separate from but brings to mind a lawsuit that several individuals previously filed against former President Donald Trump after he blocked them from accessing his social media account on Twitter, which was later renamed X. The Supreme Court dismissed that case, Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute, in April 2021 as moot because President Trump had already left office.

At the time of the ruling, the then-Twitter had banned President Trump. When Elon Musk took over the company he reversed that policy.

The new decision in Lindke v. Freed was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Respondent James Freed, the city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, used a public Facebook account to communicate with his constituents. Petitioner Kevin Lindke, a resident of Port Huron, criticized the municipality’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including accusations of hypocrisy by local officials.

Mr. Freed blocked Mr. Lindke and others and removed their comments, according to Mr. Lindke’s petition.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled for Mr. Freed, finding that he was acting only in a personal capacity and that his activities did not constitute governmental action.

Mr. Freed’s attorney, Victoria Ferres, said during oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Oct. 31, 2023, that her client didn’t give up his rights when using social media.

“This country’s 21 million government employees should have the right to talk publicly about their jobs on personal social media accounts like their private-sector counterparts.”

The position advocated by the other side would unfairly punish government officials, and “will result in uncertainty and self-censorship for this country’s government employees despite this Court repeatedly finding that government employees do not lose their rights merely by virtue of public employment,” she said.

In Lindke v. Freed, the Supreme Court found that a public official who prevents a person from comments on the official’s social media pages engages in governmental action under Section 1983 only if the official had “actual authority” to speak on the government’s behalf on a specific matter and if the official claimed to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social media posts.

Section 1983 refers to Title 42, U.S. Code, Section 1983, which allows people to sue government actors for deprivation of civil rights.

Justice Barrett wrote that according to the so-called state action doctrine, the test for “actual authority” must be “rooted in written law or longstanding custom to speak for the State.”

“That authority must extend to speech of the sort that caused the alleged rights deprivation. If the plaintiff cannot make this threshold showing of authority, he cannot establish state action.”

“For social-media activity to constitute state action, an official must not only have state authority—he must also purport to use it,” the justice continued.

“State officials have a choice about the capacity in which they choose to speak.”

Citing previous precedent, Justice Barrett wrote that generally a public employee claiming to speak on behalf of the government acts with state authority when he speaks “in his official capacity or” when he uses his speech to carry out “his responsibilities pursuant to state law.”

“If the public employee does not use his speech in furtherance of his official responsibilities, he is speaking in his own voice.”

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the 6th Circuit with instructions to vacate its judgment and ordered it to conduct “further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Also on March 15, the Supreme Court ruled on O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, a related case. The court’s sparse, unanimous opinion was unsigned.

Petitioners Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane were two elected members of the Poway Unified School District Board of Trustees in California who used their personal Facebook and Twitter accounts to communicate with the public.

Respondents Christopher Garnier and Kimberly Garnier, parents of local students, “spammed Petitioners’ posts and tweets with repetitive comments and replies” so the school board members blocked the respondents from the accounts, according to the petition filed by Ms. O’Connor-Ratcliff and Mr. Zane.

But the Garniers said they were acting in good faith.

“The Garniers left comments exposing financial mismanagement by the former superintendent as well as incidents of racism,” the couple said in a brief.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found in favor of the Garniers, holding that elected officials using social media accounts were participating in a public forum.

The Supreme Court ruled in a three-page opinion that because the 9th Circuit deviated from the standard the high court articulated in Lindke v. Freed, the 9th Circuit’s decision must be vacated.

The case was remanded to the 9th Circuit “for further proceedings consistent with our opinion” in the Lindke case, the Supreme Court stated.

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/17/2024 - 22:10

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Home buyers must now navigate higher mortgage rates and prices

Rates under 4% came and went during the Covid pandemic, but home prices soared. Here’s what buyers and sellers face as the housing season ramps up.

Published

3 hours ago

on

March 17, 2024

By

Springtime is spreading across the country. You can see it as daffodil, camellia, tulip and other blossoms start to emerge. 

You can also see it in the increasing number of for sale signs popping up in front of homes, along with the painting, gardening and general sprucing up as buyers get ready to sell. 

Which leads to two questions: 

  • How is the real estate market this spring? 
  • Where are mortgage rates? 

What buyers and sellers face

The housing market is bedeviled with supply shortages, high prices and slow sales.

Mortgage rates are still high and may limit what a buyer can offer and a seller can expect.  

Related: Analyst warns that a TikTok ban could lead to major trouble for Apple, Big Tech

And there's a factor not expected that may affect the sales process. Fixed commission rates on home sales are going away in July.

Reports this week and in a week will make the situation clearer for buyers and sellers. 

The reports are:

  • Housing starts from the U.S. Commerce Department due Tuesday. The consensus estimate is for a seasonally adjusted rate of about 1.4 million homes. These would include apartments, both rentals and condominiums. 
  • Existing home sales, due Thursday from the National Association of Realtors. The consensus estimate is for a seasonally adjusted sales rate of about 4 million homes. In 2023, some 4.1 million homes were sold, the worst sales rate since 1995. 
  • New-home sales and prices, due Monday from the Commerce Department. Analysts are expecting a sales rate of 661,000 homes (including condos), up 1.5% from a year ago.

Here is what buyers and sellers need to know about the situation. 

Mortgage rates will stay above 5% 

That's what most analysts believe. Right now, the rate on a 30-year mortgage is between 6.7% and 7%. 

Rates peaked at 8% in October after the Federal Reserve signaled it was done raising interest rates.

The Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market Survey of March 14 was at 6.74%. 

Freddie Mac buys mortgages from lenders and sells securities to investors. The effect is to replenish lenders' cash levels to make more loans. 

A hotter-than-expected Producer Price Index released that day has pushed quotes to 7% or higher, according to data from Mortgage News Daily, which tracks mortgage markets.

Home buyers must navigate higher mortgage rates and prices this spring.

TheStreet

On a median-priced home (price: $380,000) and a 20% down payment, that means a principal and interest rate payment of $2,022. The payment  does not include taxes and insurance.

Last fall when the 30-year rate hit 8%, the payment would have been $2,230. 

In 2021, the average rate was 2.96%, which translated into a payment of $1,275. 

Short of a depression, that's a rate that won't happen in most of our lifetimes. 

Most economists believe current rates will fall to around 6.3% by the end of the year, maybe lower, depending on how many times the Federal Reserve cuts rates this year. 

If 6%, the payment on our median-priced home is $1,823.

But under 5%, absent a nasty recession, fuhgettaboutit.

Supply will be tight, keeping prices up

Two factors are affecting the supply of homes for sale in just about every market.

First: Homeowners who had been able to land a mortgage at 2.96% are very reluctant to sell because they would then have to find a home they could afford with, probably, a higher-cost mortgage.

More economic news:

Second, the combination of high prices and high mortgage rates are freezing out thousands of potential buyers, especially those looking for homes in lower price ranges.

Indeed, The Wall Street Journal noted that online brokerage Redfin said only about 20% of homes for sale in February were affordable for the typical household.

And here mortgage rates can play one last nasty trick. If rates fall, that means a buyer can afford to pay more. Sellers and their real-estate agents know this too, and may ask for a higher price. 

Covid's last laugh: An inflation surge

Mortgage rates jumped to 8% or higher because since 2022 the Federal Reserve has been fighting to knock inflation down to 2% a year. Raising interest rates was the ammunition to battle rising prices.

In June 2022, the consumer price index was 9.1% higher than a year earlier. 

The causes of the worst inflation since the 1970s were: 

  • Covid-19 pandemic, which caused the global economy to shut down in 2020. When Covid ebbed and people got back to living their lives, getting global supply chains back to normal operation proved difficult. 
  • Oil prices jumped to record levels because of the recovery from the pandemic recovery and Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

What the changes in commissions means

The long-standing practice of paying real-estate agents will be retired this summer, after the National Association of Realtors settled a long and bitter legal fight.

No longer will the seller necessarily pay 6% of the sale price to split between buyer and seller agents.

Both sellers and buyers will have to negotiate separately the services agents have charged for 100 years or more. These include pre-screening properties, writing sales contracts, and the like. The change will continue a trend of adding costs and complications to the process of buying or selling a home.

Already, interest rates are a complication. In addition, homeowners insurance has become very pricey, especially in communities vulnerable to hurricanes, tornadoes, and forest fires. Florida homeowners have seen premiums jump more than 102% in the last three years. A policy now costs three times more than the national average.

Related: Veteran fund manager picks favorite stocks for 2024

 

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Default: San Francisco Four Seasons Hotel Investors $3 Million Late On Loan As Foreclosure Looms

Default: San Francisco Four Seasons Hotel Investors $3 Million Late On Loan As Foreclosure Looms

Westbrook Partners, which acquired the San…

Published

6 hours ago

on

March 17, 2024

By

Default: San Francisco Four Seasons Hotel Investors $3 Million Late On Loan As Foreclosure Looms

Westbrook Partners, which acquired the San Francisco Four Seasons luxury hotel building, has been served a notice of default, as the developer has failed to make its monthly loan payment since December, and is currently behind by more than $3 million, the San Francisco Business Times reports.

Westbrook, which acquired the property at 345 California Center in 2019, has 90 days to bring their account current with its lender or face foreclosure.

Related

As SF Gate notes, downtown San Francisco hotel investors have had a terrible few years - with interest rates higher than their pre-pandemic levels, and local tourism continuing to suffer thanks to the city's legendary mismanagement that has resulted in overlapping drug, crime, and homelessness crises (which SF Gate characterizes as "a negative media narrative).

Last summer, the owner of San Francisco’s Hilton Union Square and Parc 55 hotels abandoned its loan in the first major default. Industry insiders speculate that loan defaults like this may become more common given the difficult period for investors.

At a visitor impact summit in August, a senior director of hospitality analytics for the CoStar Group reported that there are 22 active commercial mortgage-backed securities loans for hotels in San Francisco maturing in the next two years. Of these hotel loans, 17 are on CoStar’s “watchlist,” as they are at a higher risk of default, the analyst said. -SF Gate

The 155-room Four Seasons San Francisco at Embarcadero currenly occupies the top 11 floors of the iconic skyscrper. After slow renovations, the hotel officially reopened in the summer of 2021.

"Regarding the landscape of the hotel community in San Francisco, the short term is a challenging situation due to high interest rates, fewer guests compared to pre-pandemic and the relatively high costs attached with doing business here," Alex Bastian, President and CEO of the Hotel Council of San Francisco, told SFGATE.

Heightened Risks

In January, the owner of the Hilton Financial District at 750 Kearny St. - Portsmouth Square's affiliate Justice Operating Company - defaulted on the property, which had a $97 million loan on the 544-room hotel taken out in 2013. The company says it proposed a loan modification agreement which was under review by the servicer, LNR Partners.

Meanwhile last year Park Hotels & Resorts gave up ownership of two properties, Parc 55 and Hilton Union Square - which were transferred to a receiver that assumed management.

In the third quarter of 2023, the most recent data available, the Hilton Financial District reported $11.1 million in revenue, down from $12.3 million from the third quarter of 2022. The hotel had a net operating loss of $1.56 million in the most recent third quarter.

Occupancy fell to 88% with an average daily rate of $218 in the third quarter compared with 94% and $230 in the same period of 2022. -SF Chronicle

According to the Chronicle, San Francisco's 2024 convention calendar is lighter than it was last year - in part due to key events leaving the city for cheaper, less crime-ridden places like Las Vegas. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/17/2024 - 18:05

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending