Solana price analysis: resistance before $133

I see two separate calls in More Crypto Online's Solana analysis: the bounce may have further to run, but it has not yet established a direct breakout. The analyst favors higher prices in the short term while leaving room for another decline afterward. To judge that outlook, I would watch both the nearby resistance and the shape of the recovery.

Start with the price structure

Solana was recovering after reaching the analyst's broader support zone, where they expected buying interest might slow the decline. They describe the recovery as corrective: a rebound within a larger pullback. Under that reading, price can rise for a while without finishing the correction.

The broader chart has an ascending trend channel, with upward-sloping boundaries around the price movement. The analyst thinks Solana may be forming a diagonal inside it, a sloping wave pattern whose swings can overlap. Their proposed count allows another high to complete a five-wave advance.

I find the distinction between the next swing and the whole recovery more useful than a single bullish or bearish label. The analyst is considering two routes that initially look alike. Both start with rising prices, but one includes a later downward leg and the other extends upward more directly.

Support and resistance help distinguish those routes. A support area is where demand may slow a falling price; resistance is where a rising price may struggle to advance. Several nearby levels can form a zone, so reaching its lower edge is different from moving through the whole area. The analyst uses those locations to assess which route the market is following.

Their reading also depends on the earlier decline. They classify it as a three-wave pullback within the larger upward move. For a reader following the count, that explains why the analyst still considers another high possible even though the current rebound looks corrective. The smaller recovery and the larger trend need to be assessed separately.

What the corrective wave count means

Elliott wave analysis labels market swings as advances and corrections. In this method, five waves can describe a directional move, while an A-B-C sequence can describe a correction. The labels let the analyst explain how successive swings might fit together; they are a proposed reading of the chart.

The analyst's orange scenario puts the current recovery in a B wave. In an A-B-C pullback, that is the rebound after the initial A-wave decline and before a possible final decline in the larger C wave. Further strength would therefore fit this scenario without necessarily ending the pullback.

I would pay particular attention to the scale of each label here. The analyst also thinks the B-wave rebound may contain smaller waves of its own, with a smaller C wave carrying price upward. That upward C wave belongs inside the larger B wave. The larger C wave, if it follows, would move downward.

The same letter can thus describe moves in opposite directions at different scales. If an update says price is advancing in wave C, the useful detail is whether that label refers to the smaller rebound or the broader correction. Without that distinction, an upward short-term call can sound as though the analyst has ruled out a later decline when they have not.

There is also a wider wave 4 interpretation. In that scenario, Solana could briefly fall below the ascending channel before advancing again. The analyst uses the broader support area as a fallback reference if that happens, rather than treating the channel's lower boundary as the only place where the pullback can end.

For me, those nested counts explain why the analysis needs more than a direction call. A bounce can progress as expected while the broader correction remains open. Following which swing belongs to which count makes it possible to tell whether a later update changes the forecast or merely describes the next part of the same proposed pattern.

The resistance ladder before a direct move higher

The bounce had reached the first resistance level on the one-hour chart. The remaining levels are Fibonacci retracements, calculated from a selected price swing. They give the analyst a series of reference points for judging how far the recovery has progressed.

The analyst gives the upper boundary of the one-hour area more weight than the intermediate lines. They say a decisive break above it could support a more direct upward extension. The higher-time-frame level in the last row is the next larger resistance in their framework.

I would use the intermediate levels to follow the bounce's progress rather than read each as a separate forecast. The market can move through the lower part of the zone while still remaining inside the resistance area. That would be consistent with a recovery that has gained ground but has not supplied the analyst's stronger breakout signal.

Fibonacci retracements depend on the price swing chosen for the calculation. The ratios make it possible to map that swing consistently, but another selection changes the reference points. When comparing this analysis with a later update, the underlying swing matters as much as the decimal prices printed beside the lines.

The analyst does not specify a precise test for a decisive break. I would therefore distinguish a brief touch above the boundary from price continuing to trade beyond it. A follow-up claim about a breakout should make clear which of those events the analyst is describing.

This distinction matters when comparing the corrective and direct-extension routes. Both allow the bounce to climb into resistance. The analyst's stronger signal concerns what happens at the far side of the zone, where price would have cleared the nearby obstacle rather than merely entered it. The larger resistance comes into focus only after that nearer test.

Support depends on the time frame

The support levels answer different questions. The most recent swing low relates to the immediate bounce. The channel boundary and wider support zone relate to the larger pullback and the analyst's broader wave count.

The earlier weekend area held, and price was pushing higher when the analyst made the assessment. They then moved their nearest support reference to the latest swing low. The earlier area remains part of the price history, but the more recent low gives them a closer reference for the ongoing advance.

I would keep the sloping channel line separate from the horizontal levels. Its price changes as time passes, so the approximate location in the table applies to that assessment. Treating it as a permanent price would lose the feature that makes it a channel boundary rather than a fixed support line.

Below the channel area, the analyst places the line through the March and May highs ahead of the deeper retracement references. That ordering explains how they would assess a larger pullback: first against the nearby channel and historical line, then against levels farther inside the broad support zone.

The broad zone spans much more ground than the latest swing low. Holding somewhere within it would leave the larger scenario available for assessment, but would say less about the strength of the immediate bounce. A recent low on the one-hour chart offers a narrower test of that short-term move.

For me, this is where separating chart scales becomes practical. If nearby support fails, the immediate bounce has weakened even if the broader count still has room to work. Referring to distant support cannot answer whether the smaller setup is behaving as expected. Each level needs to stay attached to the particular claim it was meant to test.

Why the analyst still favors higher prices

The analyst reads the decline from the prior high around $125 as a three-wave move. Within their method, that looks like a correction rather than a completed reversal of the larger advance. It is the main reason they continue to focus on an upward continuation.

They also point to higher highs and higher lows. In that sequence, a rally exceeds an earlier peak and the next decline stops above an earlier trough. The analyst argues that this pattern, continued support and corrective pullbacks keep their upward interpretation intact.

I see an assumption worth following in later updates: the pullback must continue to fit inside an ongoing advance. The analyst's three-wave label explains their preference, but the subsequent swings still need to behave consistently with that reading. The useful comparison is between the conditions they name and what price does next.

They also regard the smaller upward structure as unfinished. Even in the orange corrective scenario, they expect additional upward waves. That is why caution about the type of bounce does not change their immediate directional focus.

The two routes separate after that initial strength. In the corrective route, the extra upward swings would finish the rebound before the larger downward leg. In the direct-extension route, a move through resistance would give the analyst reason to consider continued strength without that intervening decline.

I would read their higher-price preference in that narrower sense. It tells us which direction they expect the unfinished short-term swings to take. It does not settle which broader route follows, or provide a deadline for reaching the larger resistance. Those are different claims, and the analyst's stated conditions concern the route rather than a dated price promise.

When five waves would change the count

The analyst uses the October 8 low as the starting point for evaluating the recovery. If the entire rise develops into five waves, they say they could map a more direct upward scenario. They have not presented that completed sequence as an established feature of the chart.

Such a sequence would fit their directional-advance framework better than the three-wave rebound used in the corrective interpretation. The change would concern how they classify the recovery, not just whether its price has risen. The path taken from the starting low is part of the evidence they want to assess.

I would keep this structural test separate from the resistance test. One asks where price trades; the other asks how the swings fit together. The analyst uses both to judge whether the direct-extension route deserves more weight, so a follow-up should explain which test has changed their view.

A higher price reached through overlapping, hesitant swings might still fit a corrective count in this method. A promising smaller wave pattern can also meet resistance before a larger advance is established. Comparing the swing pattern with its position on the chart helps explain why the analyst may keep the corrective reading despite some upward progress.

Wave counting has its own uncertainty. Traders can label the same swings differently, particularly while the smallest moves are still forming. A sequence that looks orderly afterward can be difficult to classify as it unfolds. Keeping the starting low fixed makes the analyst's proposal easier to follow, but does not settle disagreements about the count.

I would look for an explanation of which swings complete the sequence before accepting a change to the direct-extension reading. That would connect the revised outlook to the structural condition the analyst named. A new label alone would leave the reader unable to compare the update with the earlier test.

The risks in reading a bounce chart

The central market risk is already built into the corrective route: the rebound can end and give way to another decline. Rising prices alone do not resolve that possibility. It matters whether the advance changes the larger pattern or remains one part of it.

Precise-looking levels create a separate risk of overconfidence. Decimal prices do not guarantee a reaction, and markets can cross a line, reverse around it or ignore it. Crossing one retracement does not ensure passage through the next; a short-lived move beyond resistance can also retreat back into the zone.

I would not treat agreement between a wave count and a Fibonacci level as a measured probability of success. They may fit together within the analyst's method, but that agreement does not supply a numerical chance that the scenario will play out.

Execution introduces risks that the chart cannot resolve. Crypto prices can change quickly, and an order may fill at a different price from the one expected. Thin liquidity, with fewer orders available near the current price, can widen that difference. A support or resistance reference does not determine the price at which a transaction will execute.

Leverage adds another risk. Borrowed exposure magnifies the effect of price changes, so a move that appears small on the broader chart can have a much larger effect on a leveraged position. The proposed wave count does not reduce that relationship between exposure and loss.

For me, these limits separate chart analysis from a trading recommendation. The levels can help readers assess the analyst's reasoning, but they do not establish a reliable entry price, remove execution uncertainty or make leveraged exposure safer.

Test each claim against its own level

In a later update, compare the immediate bounce with its nearest support and the direct-extension case with the top of the resistance area. Those references concern different parts of the outlook. Combining them into one bullish or bearish verdict would make it harder to see which claim has gained or lost support.

I would also check why the analyst changes the count. A failed support reference, a resistance break or the completed sequence they described gives readers something concrete to examine. An unexplained relabeling does not offer the same basis for comparison.

Keep the original starting low attached to the recovery test. If the analyst adopts the more direct route, the relevant question is whether the intervening swings meet the condition they set, rather than whether the latest price is higher. If they call a breakout, check whether price has remained beyond the upper resistance boundary or slipped back below it.