About This Dashboard

The composite regime tells you what the market environment looks like today. The meta-regime asks a deeper question: is the four-year Bitcoin cycle itself still intact? It measures the structural integrity of the framework by evaluating whether drawdowns, volatility, and key price floors remain within historical norms.

Framework health is scored from 0 to 100 and classified into one of four states:

Beyond the headline state, the meta-regime tracks several supporting metrics. Velocity measures how fast the health score is changing over 7-day and 30-day windows, with acceleration indicating whether that rate of change is speeding up or slowing down. Signal agreement captures how aligned the 26 signals are with each other — high agreement means consensus, low agreement means internal conflict.

Scenario probabilities estimate the likelihood of three outcomes: the cycle pattern holding (glory), breaking permanently (death), or remaining ambiguous (uncertain). Transition risk flags when the framework health score is close to a state boundary, identifying which domains would need to shift to trigger a downgrade or upgrade.

A historical cycle context section estimates the current position within the approximately 1,460-day cycle (accumulation, early recovery, mid-bull, distribution, correction, or bear market) and surfaces comparable historical periods.

Not every signal answers the same question. Some reveal where Bitcoin sits in its multi-year cycle; others indicate whether the next few weeks look favorable for a tactical entry. The dashboard groups signals into three temporal horizons, each scored from −100 to +100:

When horizons agree, conviction is high. When they diverge — for example, a bullish cycle score but bearish momentum — the dashboard flags this as a tension (see Signal Tensions below). That divergence often means long-term structure is intact but near-term conditions require patience.

During crashes, the composite regime score can land at NEUTRAL because bearish macro forces and bullish on-chain capitulation signals cancel each other out. This masks the fact that a meaningful accumulation opportunity may exist. The accumulation score isolates the opportunity signal by combining nine weighted factors into a single gauge from−100 to +100.

The nine factors and their weights are: drawdown from all-time high (25%), MVRV ratio (15%), Fear & Greed index (10%), funding rates (10%), open interest reset (10%), realized price ratio (10%), moving average deviation (10%), recovery phase progress (5%), and Fed balance sheet trend (5%). Each factor is scored independently, then combined into the weighted average.

The resulting score maps to five bands: Strong Accumulate (above +50), Accumulate (+20 to +50), Neutral (−20 to +20), Unfavorable (−50 to −20), and Overextended (below −50).

The Action Matrix

The dashboard crosses the composite regime (five levels) with the accumulation band (five levels) to produce a specific investor action. Seven actions are possible: Strong Buy, Buy, Hold, Reduce, Sell, Accumulate, and Defensive. For example, NEUTRAL regime paired with an Accumulate band yields a BUY action, while DANGER regime paired with an Overextended band yields SELL.

Each action is accompanied by a conviction level — High, Moderate, Low, or Mixed — derived from how many of the four domains agree on direction. High conviction (three or more domains aligned) warrants larger position sizing; Mixed conviction (two bullish and two bearish) warrants caution regardless of the headline action.

An AI-generated action rationale explains in plain English why the current regime and accumulation conditions produce the recommended action, including which factors are driving the assessment and what would need to change for the guidance to shift.

When all signals agree, the composite score tells a clean story. But markets are messy, and it is common for domains or horizons to contradict each other. The dashboard automatically detects and surfaces these tensions so they are not hidden inside an averaged-out composite.

A domain tension is flagged when two of the four domains have opposite-sign scores with a spread exceeding 30 points — for example, Macro at +40 while On-Chain sits at −35. A horizon tension is flagged when the Cycle and Momentum horizons disagree by more than 30 points in opposite directions. Each tension includes an explanation of what the disagreement means for positioning — a bullish cycle with bearish momentum typically means the structural setup is intact but patience is required, while the reverse suggests a tactical bounce within a broader downtrend.

Up to three tensions are displayed, sorted by the size of the divergence. When all signals are reasonably aligned, the tensions section is hidden entirely.

Markets are ultimately driven by narratives. The thesis scorecard takes three pre-defined investment theses — one bullish, one bearish, one neutral — and tests each against live signal data. Every thesis contains a set of binary claims (e.g., “net liquidity expanding” or “MVRV above 3.5”), and the scorecard reports what percentage of each thesis’s claims are currently confirmed by the data.

The bull thesis (“Exponential Horizon”) posits that expanding liquidity, monetary easing, and the power law trend propel BTC higher. It tests claims about net liquidity growth, M2 expansion, power law positioning, real yields, ETF inflows, and sentiment. The bear thesis (“$10K Bear Case”) tests structural overvaluation conditions: extreme real yields, low BTC dominance, power law overextension, liquidity contraction, overheated MVRV, and negative M2 growth. The neutral thesis (“10Y Yield Regime”) tests whether the bond market is creating a hostile environment for all risk assets through high nominal and real yields, dollar strength, elevated volatility, and balance sheet contraction.

Claims are weighted, so more structurally important conditions count more toward the overall confidence score. A thesis at 60%+ confidence deserves serious attention; below 40% suggests the narrative is not supported by current data. Importantly, thesis claims test binary conditions that may differ from signal scoring breakpoints — a confirmed claim means the specific condition is met, not necessarily that the underlying signal is bullish or bearish overall.