MacroTactical Crypto #3: Embrace The Nonsense

MacroTactical Crypto #3

Embrace the Nonsense

In bitcoin, like in every other market, the market loves to leave orders on the round numbers. This is because human beings are not altogether rational. We exhibit all sorts of predictable human bias, including Round Number Bias[1].

When you fill your car with gas, do you sometimes have the urge to round it off to the nearest dollar, even though you are paying with a credit card? Do you get a tiny thrill watching a car’s odometer roll over from 99,999 to 100,000? For many amateur marathon runners, a finishing time of 3:59:58 is a great success while 4:00:02 is a disappointment. People will push themselves to the absolute physical brink to break the four-hour barrier. And it works! See here:

Distribution of marathon finishing times–evidence%20from%20marathon%20runners).pdf

Human beings tend to pay attention to round numbers and treat them as special or more important than other numbers. This is good to know for traders because if you are rational, you can position yourself ahead of these round numbers knowing the probability of a fill is higher for a limit order at (for example) 68,998 than at 69,001.

There is also a novel (and also irrational) phenomenon in bitcoin and meme stocks where traders find particular numbers funny, and place orders at those levels in order to screenshot and flex or just have a good laugh with the peeps in the Discord chat. The numbers 69 and 420 have become standalone memes at this point and so the approach of bitcoin to the $69k level and the $69,420 level were hotly anticipated. Bitcoin obviously has many serious narratives behind it, but it still has one foot firmly placed in the Nonsensical Timeline.

Here is the actual real-life, not The Onion headline from FTX’s most recent funding round:

This headline adds to the increasing weight of circumstantial evidence that pretty much confirms now that we live in a simulation created by a futuristic civilization of twisted, genius, dark comedy-loving 11-year-olds.

Knowing that round numbers always matter in markets and that 69 and 420 have particular resonance in crypto, I decided to analyze transaction level data from Gemini to see what pops out.

First, I built a histogram using the last two digits of every high and low in the bitcoin hourly data back to 2018. The excel sheet has 33,840 rows. The output looks like this:

Distribution of highs and lows by last two digits (bitcoin hourly data, 2018 to now)

You see that it is much more likely for a high or low in bitcoin to fall on a round number. For example, 65,010 is more likely to be a high or low than 65,008 or 65,012… While 65,050 is much more likely to be a high or low than those other levels. Prices ending in 00 mark tops and bottoms at a much higher frequency than one would see in any random distribution. Note, however, that there is no 69 bias in this data.

The chart for bitcoin is similar in shape to what you see in other markets. For example:

Distribution of daily highs and lows in TSLA (by the cents, or last two digits of the price)

Excerpted from “Alpha Trader”, used with permission of the author

Even heavily institutional markets like FX show this sort of predictable, nonrandom, lumpy distribution, though the effect is much smaller in currencies. Now, looking at the last three digits of the bitcoin hourly highs and lows, we get:

Distribution of highs and lows by last three digits (bitcoin hourly data, 2018 to now)

Interesting that the 500s (for example, say, $12,500, or $67,500) are more frequent than the round thousands in bitcoin. I don’t know why that would be. It also seems that more highs and lows fall on the left side of 500 than on the right side. Again, that’s weird, and I’m not sure why that would be the case. If you have any theories, please share.

To check for a 420 bias, let’s compare bitcoin highs and lows ending in 20, 120, 220, 320, etc.

Distribution of highs and lows by last three digits (bitcoin hourly data, 2018 to now)

There is a modest 420 bias but it’s not big enough to matter.

The takeaways are simple once you know where the uneven parts of the distribution lie. If you leave an order to buy bitcoin at, say $47,301, you are statistically more likely to get filled than the person with an order at $47,300 or $47,299 because the majority of buy orders will be on the round number at $47,300. Most days, you’ll probably get filled at any one of those three levels, but the occasional time you get filled at 01 when you would not have got filled on or below the round number can have a big impact on your performance. It can be the difference between a red or a green P&L day.

On the flip side, if you are leaving stop loss orders, always leave them on the correct side of the round or meme number. Sell stops should be below 00 and buy stops should be above. Anyone leaving a bitcoin sell order at $69,501 this week probably doesn’t know what they are doing. On the other hand, the ones that sold at $68.998 are probably expert traders that understand markets, memes, and crowd psychology.

Be smart? Or make money?

Humorless NGMI TradFi dinosaurs would scoff at the idea that analysis of a multi-trillion-dollar asset class requires us to recognize a thick band of resistance from $69,000 to $69,420 because of the converging meme numbers there. But if you want to make money in crypto, leave your EMH textbooks at home. Do whatever works. Embrace the nonsense.

It is not a coincidence that the exact all-time high in bitcoin is $69,000 (yes, that is the exact high print on Gemini). It is not a coincidence that doge topped out the night Lorde Edge went on SNL. There are obvious narrative elements at work here. Then again, bitcoin is not all silliness. That’s what I find cool about it. It has many traditional characteristics and drivers. For example, it’s also no coincidence bitcoin bottomed on this:

A new asset class with novel quirks and qualities comes along only once or twice a lifetime. I think you can use a combination of TradFi-style macro analysis and a working knowledge of the dominant behavioral patterns, memes, and cultural narratives surrounding crypto to build a framework for understanding what the heck is going on.

Next stop, $80,085.



Click here to subscribe. Do it.


[1] Long-time readers know I am weirdly fascinated by this topic. When I die, I’ll be remembered as either the “Turnaround Tuesday” guy or the “Round Number Bias” guy. Or Brent.



Markets and Trading Commentary Disclaimer

This material has been provided by Spectra Markets, LLC (“Spectra Markets”). This material is confidential and therefore intended for your sole use. You may not reproduce, distribute or transmit this material or any portion thereof to anyone without prior written permission from Spectra Markets.

This material is solely for informational and discussion purposes only. Spectra Markets is not a registered investment advisor or commodity trading advisor. This material should not be viewed as a current or past recommendation or an offer to sell or the solicitation to enter into a particular position or adopt a particular investment strategy. Spectra Markets does not provide, and has not provided, any investment advice or personal recommendation to you in relation to any transaction described in this material. Accordingly, Spectra Markets is under no obligation to, and shall not, determine the suitability for you of any transaction described in this material.

To be clear: Your individual circumstances have not been assessed. You must determine, on your own behalf or through independent professional advice, the merits, terms, conditions, risks and consequences of any transactions described in this material. Securities described in this material may not be eligible for sale in all jurisdictions or to certain categories of investors. This material may also contain information regarding derivatives and other complex financial products. Do not invest in such products unless you fully understand and are willing to assume the risks associated with such products. Neither Spectra Markets nor any of its directors, officers, employees, representatives or agents, accept any liability whatsoever for any direct, indirect or consequential losses (in contract, tort or otherwise) arising from the use of this material or reliance on information contained herein, to the fullest extent allowed by law.

The opinions expressed in this material represent the current, good faith views of the author at the time of publication. Any information contained in this material is not and should not be regarded as investment research or derivatives research as determined by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), the National Futures Association (“NFA”) or any other relevant regulatory body. The author is currently employed at a trading desk. The opinions may not be objective or independent of the interests of the author. Additionally, the author may have consulted with various trading desks while preparing this material and a trading desk may have accumulated positions in the financial instruments or related derivatives products that are the subject of this material.

Spectra Markets does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of the information presented in this material. Past performance and simulation data do not necessarily indicate future performance. Predictions, opinions and other information contained in this material are subject to change continually and without notice of any kind and may no longer be true after the date indicated. Any forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and Spectra Markets assumes no duty to and does not undertake to update forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are subject to numerous assumptions, risks and uncertainties, which change over time. Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in forward-looking statements. The value of any investment may also fluctuate as a result of market changes.

Spectra Markets is affiliated with Spectra FX Solutions LLC, an introducing broker that is registered with the NFA; Spectra FX Solutions LLP, which is a registered entity with the U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority; and SpectrAxe, LLC, a swap execution facility that is currently in the process of registering with the CFTC. The disclosures for Spectra FX Solutions LLC and Spectra FX Solutions LLP related to the separate businesses of Spectra FX can be found at