From a technical perspective, can BTC rebound above 70,000 again???

Today, we analyze BTC's upcoming market trend purely from technical analysis. Looking solely at the candlestick charts, we'll use our most common Fibonacci analysis to examine the current market situation.
This article focuses only on BTC.
First, let's look at the overall structure.
The move on October 6th to 126,200 was a historic top.
From 126,200 all the way down to 80,600, this was the first major wave of sharp decline, with over 40,000 points wiped out. The bullish market sentiment was completely shattered, marking Macro Wave 1.
Then, from 80,600, it rebounded to 97,924, which just about retraced to the 0.382 level of the previous decline. What is 0.382? It's the standard level for a weak rebound. Strong reversals typically go to 0.5 or 0.618. Weak rebounds usually stall around 0.382, losing momentum. So, this segment is essentially not a bullish reversal but a breather within a bear market.
Next, from 97,924, it plunged all the way down to 60,000, breaking through the previous low of 80,600 and creating panic across the market. This is Wave 3.
Here's the key point: why does this segment exactly correspond to the 0.382 level? Because it's programmed into the big funds' algorithms that way.
After the first wave, the rebound hits the weak rebound standard level, then the main decline continues — a typical structure.
If we go back in time, how to predict point D?
Don't measure CD using BC. BC is just a mid-trajectory emotional rebound, involving retail bottom-fishing and short covering — very chaotic and random. The true symmetry lies between AB and CD — same level, same sentiment, led by the same major players.
Using AB for trend extension, the 0.786 level is roughly around 62,000. That last push reached near 62,000, paused for a few 4-hour candles, then suddenly dipped below 60,000.
My personal analysis is: 62,000 is a quantitative target, and the drop to just above 60,000 was more like a deliberate break of the round number to trigger stop-losses. The machines hit their mathematical targets, and the main players casually pushed through, absorbing the bloodied chips, leaving that long lower shadow.
Looking at the smaller wave of CD:
From 97,924 to 86,075 is sub-wave a.
From 86,075 rebound to 90,600 is sub-wave b, which was very short, indicating the bulls were just struggling.
From 90,600 down to 60,000 is sub-wave c.
Sub-wave c is often 1.618 or even 2.618 times sub-wave a. Calculating the ratio, it’s close to 2.618. Such a high degree of correlation makes me skeptical if it’s just coincidence.
Next, let's discuss how to measure the rebound point E.
There are three ways to measure CD:
First, use the extreme wick at 60,000 as point D.
Second, strip out the emotional spike and use the structural level at 62,000 as D.
Third, use the last small segment from 90,600 to 60,000 as sub-wave CD.
Comparing the real-time 1-hour charts, you'll find that using the corrected larger CD and sub-wave CD provides much higher precision. Simply put — for close-range analysis, focus on small structures; for long-range, focus on larger structures.
Where is point E?
First level, around 71,000, which is the 0.382 of sub-wave CD, representing the weakest rebound level.
Second level, around 75,000, which is the weak rebound level of the corrected large CD, with multiple structures resonating. This is a significant resistance zone.
Third level, around 80,000, which is the extreme resistance zone. Why? Because above 80,000 is the bottom of the first wave of decline at 80,600. If the rebound reclaims the territory initially taken by the bears, it indicates that the bears can't even hold their original position, and the bearish market logic begins to weaken.
As for above 84,000, there are indeed multiple Fibonacci resonances, but if prices reach that level, it would require reassessing whether the bear market has truly ended.
There's also a timing aspect.
The second wave BC was a clean V-shape, but the current fourth wave probably won't be a V again. Markets are symmetrical — fast earlier, slower now.
My preferred scenario is: repeated tug-of-war between 60,000 and 70,000, forming a range, oscillating, converging into a triangle, taking two to three months to wash out the chips. Then, testing around 75,000 to give some hope, before ultimately dropping back toward 50,000.
Fibonacci isn't magic; it simply quantifies human nature and market consensus. When all machines are watching these ratios, they become "accurate." You may not believe in it, but you can't ignore the rules that are currently operating in the market.