2026-01-14 06:46:04

BTC is forming a lower timeframe double distribution. Buyers have established control above the support pivot, signaling potential upside momentum. Watch for a break above this level as the next key move.

BTC1,67%

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.

15 Likes

Reward
15
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ValidatorViking

· 4h ago

double distro on lower tf? seen this pattern break both ways too many times. buyers "controlling" above pivot sounds nice until liquidity cascade hits different. uptime on this thesis would be my main metric tbh

Reply0

UnluckyValidator

· 16h ago

Breaking above the level is what truly counts; it's a bit early to say these things now...

View OriginalReply0

SeeYouInFourYears

· 16h ago

Double top distribution? I don't believe this time won't break the previous high. Buyers have been controlling the market for so long, it's time to make a move.

View OriginalReply0

GasWrangler

· 16h ago

ngl, double distributions are so overplayed... if you actually analyze the mempool data, the real signal here is transaction throughput optimization. buyers "controlling" support is demonstrably incomplete without examining base layer efficiency metrics, technically speaking

Reply0

WhaleStalker

· 16h ago

Double top distribution, this move is quite interesting. We need to see if it can hold the support level after breaking through.

View OriginalReply0

digital_archaeologist

· 16h ago

Double top distribution? Here we go again, will history really repeat itself... Holding the support level is good, but I'm worried it might just be a false alarm again.

View OriginalReply0

FlatTax

· 16h ago

Double top distribution, here we go again? Every time they say this will break next time, but what happens... we still have to see if it can truly break through.

View OriginalReply0