Solana price prediction: support and the $145-160 targets

I find the support test more useful than the upside targets in Nichtay Crypto's October 10, 2026 Solana update. The creator's bullish forecast depends on buyers defending the recent base and overcoming resistance. Those conditions give the forecast something concrete to assess before SOL approaches either projected target.

The analysis combines a possible rounded bottom, a comparison with an earlier rally and an expectation of Bitcoin strength. I would keep those arguments separate: a developing chart shape, a historical comparison and a broader-market forecast each need their own evidence.

The Solana price prediction starts at support

A recent sell-off took SOL down to $105 before it recovered to around $110 at the time of the analysis. The bullish interpretation of the 12-hour chart is a possible rounded bottom. That curved formation can suggest selling pressure is easing, although the word "possible" matters while the shape is still developing.

Underneath the recovery is a former resistance zone that the forecast treats as support. Buyers previously struggled to push through that area; after breaking above it, they need to defend it during the retreat. Support matters because buying has interrupted a decline there before, not because the level guarantees that buyers will return.

I prefer this starting point to an isolated price target. It identifies the boundary between the proposed recovery and a return to a weaker trading range. The relevant areas have different roles:

These are not guaranteed stops along a single route. The support area tests the recovery, while the major resistance stands between the current base and the larger upside projections. The pullback area belongs to a scenario that first requires an advance.

The take-profit placeholder has a separate purpose. It is an exit level attached to the creator's position, and it may change as price develops. A planned exit can sit below a chart target because managing a position and estimating how far a rally might extend are different decisions.

A reclaim needs more than a brief price spike

The bullish sequence first requires SOL to reclaim a nearby trendline and return to the zone lost during the breakdown. A trendline connects selected chart points to make a direction or boundary easier to see. Because the analyst chooses those points, I would assess whether later price action respects the line rather than treat the drawing itself as evidence.

Beyond that line is the major resistance listed above. Its history includes earlier support and rejection points, with chart areas from January-February 2024 used in the analysis. After SOL lost the old support, the area repeatedly resisted recovery attempts. This is a support-resistance flip: a place where buying once interrupted declines later becomes a place where selling interrupts advances.

A reclaim requires more than a brief move above that boundary. The proposed sequence calls for price to hold on top of it and begin building higher. A wick, the thin part of a candlestick that records an intraperiod price excursion, can poke above resistance without establishing that hold.

I would distinguish those outcomes before judging a breakout. Otherwise, it becomes easy to call any rising move confirmation and change the standard only after price reverses. The analysis does not specify an exact candle-close rule for confirming the reclaim.

Past trading activity also complicates the resistance test. The volume profile groups that activity by price and shows substantial volume around the zone. In the forecast, this is a reason to expect a difficult crossing. It cannot establish that the same participants will respond in the same way when SOL returns.

For me, a sustained reclaim would carry more weight than the developing bottom. The rounded shape offers a reason to watch the recovery; holding above resistance would show that buyers had overcome a boundary that previously stopped them. That difference matters when evaluating a chart before the formation is complete.

Why compare expansion legs

The projection borrows its structure from an earlier expansion leg, a strong directional move in which SOL rose approximately 44% and then pulled back about 11%. The retreat found support near an area that had previously acted as resistance. That behavior, rather than the size of the rally alone, supplies the model for another advance.

The proposed sequence is straightforward: price breaks higher, retreats toward an old boundary and holds there before attempting another expansion. It gives the forecast a basis in observed price behavior instead of relying only on positive sentiment. The current support test is meant to resemble the holding phase of that earlier sequence.

I would still treat the resemblance as a hypothesis. Similar chart shapes can arise from different buying and selling pressures. An earlier example establishes that SOL followed that path once; it does not establish how often the pattern succeeds or what size the next rally should reach.

The new measurements suggest about 34% toward the lower part of the potential expansion and about 48% toward the higher target. Those figures measure the proposed paths. They do not independently demonstrate that buyers will supply enough demand to complete them.

The projected correction carries another assumption: the retreat after a new advance would resemble the earlier pullback. For the comparison to hold, SOL would need both a comparable upward move and buying near the next proposed support area. Matching the rally while failing to hold that area would be a weaker resemblance.

What I would look for is the behavior behind the measurement. Former resistance becoming support gives the pattern its meaning. Copying a percentage onto another part of the chart can suggest a destination, but it cannot establish a probability. The creator presents this path as an opinion, not a claim that the exact sequence must repeat.

The two upside paths have different demands

The lower target area contains several earlier rejections, places where attempts to move higher met selling. That history explains why the area appears in the forecast. It also means the target itself could be resistance rather than an easy point to pass through.

In the lower scenario, SOL could rise around 35% before retreating toward the pullback area in the table. That possible landing zone aligns with a prior rejection and previous support. The proposed correction would establish another base rather than undo the recovery, provided buyers defended it.

I would reserve the description "healthy" correction until the response to that retreat is visible. Buyers need to hold a meaningful area and the market needs to resume its upward structure. Applying the label beforehand assumes that selling will stop where the projection places it.

The higher scenario extends the expansion comparison further. SOL would have to continue beyond the lower target area, so the upper projection does not remove the selling pressure it may encounter along the way. Both paths depend on the earlier reclaim, but the larger one asks more of the subsequent rally.

Neither scenario implies a smooth climb. Markets can stall below a watched level, briefly overshoot it or revisit it repeatedly. I would distinguish reaching a target from holding it: a short-lived move into resistance and a sustained advance beyond it are different outcomes.

The forecast covers roughly the next 1 to 2 months, potentially into early to mid-November or beyond, and anticipates a larger move into the end of the year. That schedule is part of the prediction, not a deadline imposed by the pattern. SOL could move in the expected direction without reaching the target, or reach it on a different schedule. Assessing destination and timing separately avoids treating a partial match as confirmation of the whole forecast.

Bitcoin is a condition, not a conversion formula

The bullish SOL outlook partly depends on an expected Bitcoin advance. The illustrated Bitcoin range runs from around 12% toward approximately 19-20%, with the forecast leaning toward the smaller move. A rise near the lower end is considered a possible backdrop for Solana's lower expansion scenario.

This connection does not mean that a given Bitcoin percentage translates into a fixed SOL percentage. The assumption is that a stronger broader market could help buyers push Solana through its own resistance. SOL might nevertheless rise less than the larger projection and stop near the earlier rejection zone.

I would avoid reading precision into the side-by-side percentages. Cryptoassets can respond to shared changes in risk appetite without matching one another in size or timing. SOL could lag a broader rally while sellers remain active at its own price boundaries, or move independently for reasons the chart comparison does not capture.

Bitcoin strength would therefore support the forecast without completing the local setup. The trendline reclaim and resistance hold would still need to happen. Substituting a Bitcoin rally for those tests would remove the evidence the SOL argument requires.

There is also an extra dependency: the supporting Bitcoin forecast has its own uncertain outcome. I would evaluate that claim alongside the Solana chart rather than count it as confirmation in advance. Combining plausible forecasts does not make their combined result certain, especially when the proposed timing may differ between the assets.

Losing support changes the argument

The downside alternative is a loss of the proposed base followed by a return to the lower trading range in the table. "Acceptance" here means spending meaningful time trading inside that area, rather than passing through it briefly and reversing. The expected result would be choppy movement instead of the preferred upward continuation.

Within a range, price repeatedly moves between boundaries without sustaining a direction. Rallies can look promising and then fade before establishing higher support. That is a different outcome from reclaiming resistance and building above it, even if both produce occasional upward bursts.

I find this downside branch useful because it explains what would weaken the bullish interpretation. The forecast depends on the recent retreat having established a base. Returning to the old range would undermine that premise, not merely delay the projected target.

The range's lower boundary is not an absolute floor. It marks an area considered relevant because of previous trading, and continued selling could carry price beyond it. The rounded-bottom interpretation would also lose support if the base broke: the same curve could turn out to be a pause within a decline.

I would change the assessment when the required base fails. Continuing to focus on the upper target after that would preserve the conclusion while discarding the condition that supported it. The downside branch belongs to the forecast from the start, not only after the market moves against the bullish view.

A leveraged position is not evidence of forecast accuracy

The creator discloses an open Solana long using 15x leverage and presents it as evidence that their own money backs the bullish view. A long benefits from a rising price. Leverage creates exposure larger than the capital committed, so it amplifies both favorable moves and the damage from unfavorable ones.

That disclosure makes the financial interest clear, but it does not establish forecasting skill. Nor does an open position's displayed profit demonstrate a repeatable record. I would separate conviction from evidence: someone can sincerely believe a forecast and risk money on it while still being wrong.

Leveraged positions may be liquidated if the market moves far enough against them under the venue's margin rules. The platform then closes the position because the collateral no longer meets its requirements. An eventual bullish move would not rescue a position already closed during an intervening decline.

This path risk matters particularly when the forecast itself anticipates a correction after an expansion. A later destination and a position's ability to survive the route are separate questions. Timing and position terms matter independently of whether the broad directional call proves correct.

I would also keep the disclosed exit placeholder in its proper context. It is not a universal exit instruction, and it does not prove that nearby resistance will stop price. It belongs to a position with risk circumstances that differ from a reader's.

Execution adds another risk beyond the chart forecast. Volatility, rapid reversals and thin trading conditions can cause execution prices to differ from intended levels. A chart boundary may be clear in the analysis but difficult to act on precisely in a moving market.

Judge the sequence before the target

I would assess this forecast through its conditions before considering the larger numbers. The proposed base comes first, followed by the lost trendline and the major resistance. An upward burst does not satisfy the sequence unless the required hold follows it.

Keeping each level's role consistent makes later evaluation fairer. A target should not become evidence of success before price reaches it, and a support boundary should not become irrelevant merely because price crosses it in the wrong direction. The original conditions remain the standard for assessing the call.

The historical comparison deserves the same treatment. Its useful feature is a breakout followed by support holding, not just a similar-looking curve. I would look for that behavior before crediting the projected expansion, and judge the timing separately from the destination.

For this SOL forecast, the decisive downside condition is a failure of the proposed support followed by acceptance back into the lower trading range.