Bitcoin Indicator Scorecard
Take a signal people quote — Pi Cycle, MVRV, RSI, the golden cross. Count how often the thing it predicted actually happened. Then count how often that same thing happened anyway, on the days the signal could have fired but didn't. If the two numbers are the same, the signal told you nothing.
The scorecard
30 signals examined, plus 6 of our own · 2 fired often enough to judge · 0 beat doing nothing
Most of these signals describe cycle turns, and bitcoin has had four cycles. A signal that has fired five times cannot be told apart from luck, however clean its record looks — so those rows carry figures but no verdict.
Every rule on the site. Left to right: how many times it has fired. Up and down: how far its hit rate sits above or below the baseline. The dashed vertical line is the twenty-episode floor a verdict needs; the horizontal line is no difference at all. Almost everything sits left of the floor — which is the finding, not a gap.
| Indicator | What it claims | Today | Times fired | It happened | Could be | Happened anyway | Edge | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enough history to judge | ||||||||
| RSI-14 below 30 | An oversold RSI precedes a rally. | quiet since 2026-06-11 | 21 | 47.6% | 31-65% | 59.0% | -11.3 pts | Indistinguishable |
| RSI-14 above 70 | An overbought RSI precedes a fall. | quiet since 2026-09-23 | 20 | 30.0% | 16-48% | 38.6% | -8.6 pts | Indistinguishable |
| Too few times to judge — figures shown, no verdict | ||||||||
| LPPLS bubble model | A log-periodic power-law fit identifies a bubble approaching its critical time. | quiet since 2024-05-03 | 18 | 28.0% | 14-57% | 35.0% | -7.1 pts | No verdictcould detect ±17 pts |
| Hash ribbon capitulation | When the 30-day hash rate falls below the 60-day, miners are capitulating and a bottom is near. | quiet since 2026-08-25 | 15 | 60.0% | 39-78% | 53.3% | +6.7 pts | No verdictcould detect ±20 pts |
| Price reclaims the 50-week average | A convincing close back above the 50-week average confirms the low is in. | quiet since 2026-09-20 | 14 | 64.3% | 43-81% | 59.1% | +5.2 pts | No verdictcould detect ±20 pts |
| Golden cross | The 50-day crossing above the 200-day average starts a bull phase. | quiet since 2026-09-09 | 12 | 66.7% | 43-84% | 56.5% | +10.2 pts | No verdictcould detect ±21 pts |
| Death cross | The 50-day crossing below the 200-day average starts a bear phase. | quiet since 2025-11-17 | 12 | 58.3% | 36-78% | 29.1% | +29.2 pts | No verdictcould detect ±20 pts |
| Mayer multiple above 2.4 | Price at 2.4x its 200-day average is an overheated market. | quiet since 2021-03-14 | 8 | 25.0% | 9-54% | 27.0% | -2.0 pts | No verdictcould detect ±23 pts |
| MVRV Z-score above 5 | An extreme Z-score marks the top of the cycle. | quiet since 2024-11-25 | 7 | 14.3% | 3-45% | 31.5% | -17.2 pts | No verdictcould detect ±25 pts |
| Market cap under 10x thermocap | Market value close to everything ever paid to miners marks a cycle low. | quiet since 2023-09-28 | 7 | 57.1% | 29-81% | 23.7% | +33.4 pts | No verdictcould detect ±24 pts |
| Puell multiple below 0.4 | Miner revenue far below its yearly average marks a cycle low. | quiet since 2022-12-25 | 6 | 83.3% | 50-96% | 54.3% | +29.0 pts | No verdictcould detect ±28 pts |
| Pi Cycle Top | The 111-day average crossing above twice the 350-day average marks a cycle top. | quiet since 2021-04-23 | 5 | 100.0% | 65-100% | 26.6% | +73.4 pts | No verdictcould detect ±27 pts |
| MVRV above 3.7 | An MVRV above 3.7 marks the top of the cycle. | quiet since 2021-03-14 | 5 | 20.0% | 5-57% | 28.6% | -8.6 pts | No verdictcould detect ±28 pts |
| MVRV below 1 | An MVRV below 1 means the average holder is under water: a bottom. | quiet since 2023-01-13 | 5 | 60.0% | 27-86% | 54.4% | +5.6 pts | No verdictcould detect ±30 pts |
| MVRV Z-score below zero | Market value below realised value, in standard deviations, marks the bottom. | quiet since 2023-01-13 | 5 | 60.0% | 27-86% | 51.9% | +8.1 pts | No verdictcould detect ±30 pts |
| Price below realised price | When price falls under what the average holder paid, the bottom is in. | quiet since 2023-01-13 | 5 | 60.0% | 27-86% | 54.4% | +5.6 pts | No verdictcould detect ±30 pts |
| Price below the balanced price | A deeper floor than realised price, reached only in the worst bear markets. | quiet since 2023-01-13 | 5 | 60.0% | 27-86% | 54.4% | +5.6 pts | No verdictcould detect ±30 pts |
| Fear and Greed at 20 or below | Extreme fear means the market has capitulated and it is time to buy. | quiet since 2026-07-08 | 5 | 20.0% | 5-57% | 50.1% | -30.1 pts | No verdictcould detect ±30 pts |
| Fear and Greed at 80 or above | Extreme greed means the market is euphoric and due to fall. | quiet since 2025-01-22 | 5 | 40.0% | 14-73% | 40.2% | -0.2 pts | No verdictcould detect ±29 pts |
| Price below the 200-week average | Price under its 200-week average is a generational buying zone. | quiet since 2026-08-17 | 4 | 75.0% | 36-94% | 45.5% | +29.5 pts | No verdictcould detect ±32 pts |
| Price below the 2-year average | The 2-year moving average multiplier marks the accumulation band. | firing | 4 | 25.0% | 6-64% | 44.4% | -19.4 pts | No verdictcould detect ±32 pts |
| One-year return below -50% | A full reset of the trailing year marks the capitulation low. | quiet since 2023-03-10 | 4 | 50.0% | 18-82% | 53.3% | -3.3 pts | No verdictcould detect ±32 pts |
| Puell multiple above 4 | Miner revenue far above its yearly average marks a cycle top. | quiet since 2018-01-07 | 3 | 33.3% | 8-75% | 29.0% | +4.3 pts | No verdictcould detect ±33 pts |
| Weekly RSI below 30 | An oversold weekly RSI marks the bottom of a bear market. | quiet since 2026-03-03 | 3 | 66.7% | 25-92% | 58.6% | +8.1 pts | No verdictcould detect ±34 pts |
| Public attention in its lowest sixth | Nobody is looking: the condition that precedes a recovery. | firing | 3 | 33.3% | 8-75% | 55.4% | -22.1 pts | No verdictcould detect ±34 pts |
| Transaction fees in their lowest twentieth | Fees as low as at previous bottoms mean the chain is as quiet as it gets. | quiet since 2012-03-03 | 2 | 100.0% | 43-100% | 54.6% | +45.4 pts | No verdictcould detect ±38 pts |
| Public attention in its highest tenth | Everybody is looking: the condition that marks a top. | quiet since 2021-05-31 | 2 | 0.0% | 0-58% | 25.9% | -25.9 pts | No verdictcould detect ±36 pts |
| Price below the Stock-to-Flow model | Bitcoin trades below its scarcity-implied value and will revert to it. | firing | 2 | 50.0% | 12-88% | 3.6% | +46.4 pts | No verdictcould detect ±30 pts |
| Stablecoin supply ratio in its lowest tenth | Plenty of dry powder relative to market value precedes a rally. | quiet since 2026-07-01 | 1 | 0.0% | – | 39.3% | -39.3 pts | No verdict |
| Monthly RSI below 40 | A monthly RSI at bear-market levels marks the bottom. | quiet since 2023-01-11 | 1 | 100.0% | – | 55.5% | +44.5 pts | No verdict |
| This site’s own instruments, held to the same test | ||||||||
| Our composite reads dear (above 70) | When our own valuation composite is in its dear band, a 40% fall follows. | quiet since 2025-08-14 | 9 | 33.3% | 14-60% | 27.1% | +6.2 pts | No verdictcould detect ±22 pts |
| Our composite reads cheap (below 30) | When our own valuation composite is in its cheap band, a doubling follows. | quiet since 2026-08-20 | 6 | 50.0% | 22-78% | 41.6% | +8.4 pts | No verdictcould detect ±28 pts |
| Price in the power-law model's bottom fifth | When price sits in the lowest fifth of its power-law deviation history, a doubling follows. | quiet since 2026-08-20 | 5 | 60.0% | 27-86% | 47.0% | +13.0 pts | No verdictcould detect ±30 pts |
| Our composite reads very cheap (below 10) | When our composite is in its lowest band, a doubling follows. | quiet since 2022-11-30 | 4 | 50.0% | 18-82% | 51.7% | -1.7 pts | No verdictcould detect ±32 pts |
| Our composite reads very dear (above 90) | When our composite is in its highest band, a 40% fall follows. | quiet since 2021-04-17 | 3 | 0.0% | 0-47% | 31.7% | -31.7 pts | No verdictcould detect ±33 pts |
| Price in the power-law model's top fifth | When price sits in the highest fifth of its power-law deviation history, a 40% fall follows. | quiet since 2021-11-30 | 3 | 0.0% | 0-47% | 24.5% | -24.5 pts | No verdictcould detect ±32 pts |
| The composite’s bands and the power-law percentile are ours. Their cuts were published on the Where Things Stand and Power Law pages before this test existed, but they were still chosen by us after seeing history, and they get no more credit for that than the rules above. Every one reads “not enough episodes”, and two of the six top signals were followed by a 40% fall on none of their firings. | ||||||||
36 rules were tested. At 90% confidence about one in ten clears its interval by chance, so about 3.6 of these would look significant if none of them worked. 0 beat the baseline and 0 read worse than it — fewer than chance predicts. The rules that read “not enough episodes” are not failures of the rules; they are a statement about the sample: with n episodes, an edge smaller than the interval’s half-width cannot be told from luck. Each such row shows the smallest edge its sample could have detected. | ||||||||
| Across ether, Solana, the Nasdaq and the S&P 500, each against its own base rate: RSI-14 below 30 indistinguishable (56 episodes pooled); RSI-14 above 70 indistinguishable (70 episodes pooled); Golden cross beats the baseline (33 episodes pooled); Death cross indistinguishable (34 episodes pooled); Price 40% above its 200-day average not enough episodes to score (18 episodes pooled); Price 20% below its 200-day average not enough episodes to score (15 episodes pooled). Does it work anywhere? | ||||||||
Computed from the daily public snapshot through 2026-10-14, over 5,902 daily closes. Outcome window 365 days; triggers within 90 days count once; a verdict needs at least 20 of them.
- Times fired — separate occasions, not days. A signal true for six months counts once, not 180 times.
- It happened — how often the predicted outcome followed within a year: a 40% fall for a top signal, a doubling for a bottom signal.
- Happened anyway — how often that same outcome followed on comparable days when the signal did not fire.
- Happened anyway — the same outcome on the days the rule could have fired but did not. The unconditional version, with no rule attached at all, is on the base rates page.
- Today — whether the rule is firing on the latest day the pipeline has, and if not, when it last did. The reading and its record sit on the same row so that neither is quoted without the other.
- Still open — a rule that has fired recently has episodes whose 365-day window has not closed. They are excluded from the rates above, because scoring them now would count an unfinished outcome as a failure. Each claim page names how many and when the first one fired.
- Could be — a 90% interval on the observed rate. It measures sampling variation between independent trials and nothing else: not that the rule was chosen after seeing this history, not that cycles are not independent draws, not that thirty-six rules were tested. Read it as the narrowest the uncertainty could be, never the whole of it.
- Edge — the gap between the two. Near zero means the signal added nothing.
Every claim, one page each
Each of these is a question people actually ask. Each page gives the claim, where it came from, exactly how it was tested, and what the numbers do and do not support.
How a rule is scored
Each rule is measured only on days it could have fired — days where its inputs existed and where a full outcome window follows. A 200-week average cannot be scored before there are 200 weeks of price.
Consecutive triggers are grouped into episodes: a trigger, plus any further trigger within 90 days, counts once. Without this, a rule that stays true for six months would be counted as 180 independent successes.
The baseline is the eligible days on which the rule did not fire, excluding each trigger and the 90 days after it. That exclusion matters: the days immediately after a top signal are unusual precisely because a top signal just fired, and leaving them in would flatter the comparison.
Followed means a 40% fall from that day's close within 365 days for a top rule, or a doubling within 365 days for a bottom rule. Episodes whose 365-day window has not completed are excluded and counted as censored.
A rule with fewer than 20 scoreable episodes gets no verdict. Its figures are still shown, greyed, so you can see why.
What this cannot tell you
This is descriptive and in sample. It measures what followed these signals in the history we have. It is not a forecast, and a rule that beat its baseline historically may simply have been lucky across four cycles.
The outcome windows overlap heavily, so episodes are not independent draws. Treat differences of a few points as noise.
Most of these rules describe cycle-scale events, and bitcoin has had four cycles. That is why so many rows read not enough episodes. That result is the finding, not a gap in the work: a signal that has fired five times cannot be distinguished from luck, however impressive its record looks.
Every figure here is recomputed from the public daily snapshot. The code is in the data repository; the specifications are on the methods page.
Why counting more signals does not help
A natural response to two of thirty-six is to want more indicators. It does not work, for two reasons that pull in the same direction.
Many popular indicators are one indicator. Net Unrealised Profit and Loss is market value less what holders paid, over market value. MVRV is market value over what holders paid. So NUPL = 1 − 1/MVRV: not correlated, not similar, the same number written twice, and every threshold on one is a threshold on the other. A dashboard reporting seventeen signals where thirteen are that one comparison — sliced by holder cohort or algebraically restated — has three independent quantities, not seventeen. They must agree, so their agreement is not evidence.
And testing more rules produces more positives by chance. At thirty-six rules, roughly 3.6 would clear a 90% interval on luck alone. A tally finishing nine to seven is inside that. Counting votes is not measuring edges, which is why there is no consensus score anywhere on this site.
None of this says the underlying quantity is uninformative. Market value against what holders paid may well be the most useful single reading on a bitcoin dashboard. It says that knowing it thirteen times is still knowing it once.
Sixteen years of firing
what the rule predicted happened it did not the year is not up, so no answer yet
Rules are ordered by how often they have fired. The shape of this chart is the finding. Two rows carry enough marks to judge; most carry a handful, and twelve rules have fired fewer than five times in sixteen years.
Colour is the outcome, never the direction. Since a signal picked at random is right about half the time, showing hits in green and misses in red would smuggle in a verdict the confidence intervals do not support — so the two are deliberately neutral against each other, and only no answer yet stands out.
Episodes are drawn as spans because that is what they are: the shortest here lasted a day and the longest ran over twelve years. A dashboard that draws each firing as a mark of equal width makes a rule that fired three times look as busy as one that fired twenty-three.
When the evidence changes, you will hear about it.
The first row of the forward record was fixed on 8 September 2026 and becomes scoreable on 8 September 2027. Rules cross the episode floor and become judgeable for the first time. Verdicts move. Figures get corrected, and the correction is published with its date.
No signals, no price calls, no promotions, and nothing sold. These tools are free and stay free. The list lives on Substack, so nothing about you is stored here and unsubscribing is one click in any email.