I would look at the shape of Solana's rebound before calling an end to its pullback. More Crypto Online sees room for a weekend bounce after price reached daily support, but the analyst's preferred short-term reading still allows another decline before a more durable low forms. The support reaction gives that outlook a starting point; the next swings determine which interpretation fits.
Solana reaches daily support
Solana has reached the daily-chart support box between $89.57 and $106.79 after falling from the local top formed on September 27 and 28. Price reacted at the upper edge of the box. Traders watch support for buying interest that might interrupt a decline, so the reaction matters even before there is enough price movement to assess a recovery.
The analyst reads the fall as a three-wave decline. In their interpretation, that leaves room for a corrective pullback rather than establishing that a major market top has formed. The speed of the fall and its structure answer different questions: a sharp move describes how quickly price dropped, while the wave count describes the swings within that drop.
I would separate the chart observation from the interpretation. Price reaching a marked support area is visible. Calling the decline corrective depends on how the analyst groups its swings. Keeping those two things separate makes it easier to assess a later update: the price location may be unchanged even if the proposed wave count changes.
Solana also remains inside an upward-sloping channel on the daily chart. Its boundary lines frame the direction and extent of the local price movement. The lower boundary is the analyst's initial support reference alongside the 23.6 retracement, a Fibonacci measurement of how much of an earlier advance has been reversed.
Those references explain why the first reaction drew attention. Price met an area already identified on the chart, rather than an arbitrary point chosen after the bounce. The analyst's recovery case still depends on the swings that follow: a pullback must preserve the nearby structure, and an advance must contend with resistance above it.
Why three waves and five waves matter
Elliott Wave analysis groups market swings into advancing and correcting patterns. The simplified distinction used here is that a three-wave move is corrective, while a five-wave advance offers stronger evidence of a directional move. The analyst cautions that the method involves more than this distinction, which is important when smaller patterns sit inside larger ones.
The advance from the June low looks more like three waves than five to the creator. Their overall label is A-B-C: an initial advance, a pullback to a higher low, and another advance. The higher low means the later trough sits above the earlier one, a feature traders watch when assessing whether an upward structure remains intact.
Within that count, the A leg can contain three waves, while the C leg should contain five. A five-wave move can therefore belong to a larger corrective advance. Finding five smaller swings in one part of the chart is not enough to establish that the whole rise is a sustained new trend; the scale of the count matters.
I find the relationship between those scales more useful than a label on its own. An analyst may describe a small upward leg as directional while describing the larger move containing it as corrective. Those descriptions can coexist. To judge them, the reader needs to know where each proposed wave begins and ends, and which larger leg it belongs to.
Choosing those endpoints requires judgment. Wave counts are analytical models, not measurements with one unavoidable answer, and they need revision when price no longer fits. Here, the distinction gives the analyst a way to compare a limited recovery with a clearer directional advance. It does not settle the outlook merely because the preceding decline was fast.
The daily chart leaves room for another high
The white count treats the larger advance as A-B-C. Within that interpretation, the analyst describes an ideal continuation of another higher low followed by another higher high. This is an expected sequence in their model, not a result already established by the chart. Both parts of the sequence matter to the proposed continuation.
The orange count allows the current decline to be a fourth wave within a larger sequence that could still produce another high. The colors distinguish alternative sets of wave labels. What matters is the price structure each set permits and the conditions that would support it, rather than the color assigned to the scenario.
I would keep these alternatives separate when reading the short-term outlook. A corrective reading of the wider advance still permits another upward leg. Equally, a count that allows a higher high does not require the latest trough to be the final low of the pullback. The daily alternatives leave different routes open from the same current price area.
The creator considers the correction unfinished and a wider fourth-wave pullback likely, but sees no evidence at this stage that a major top has formed. These judgments concern different scales. A local correction can need more time or another decline while the larger structure still permits an advance beyond its previous high.
The channel adds a separate test. The analyst gives it less weight in Elliott Wave terms than as a description of the local trend. A move below the lower boundary would change that trend picture; their next question would be whether deeper support holds. Crossing the line alone would not resolve every larger wave scenario.
Why $96.89 matters
The analyst identifies $96.89 as the next major support. Earlier swing highs from March and May, the August breakout point and its retest, and the 38.2 retracement of the advance all contribute to that reading. The level has a role in the chart's history as well as in the proposed fourth-wave pullback.
A swing high is a local peak before price turns lower. When price later breaks beyond an area that previously constrained it, a return to that area is called a retest. Traders watch these locations because they record where resistance appeared or where price changed direction. Here, those earlier events help explain the attention given to the deeper support.
The creator also describes the 38.2 retracement as a common place for a fourth wave to end. That connects the level to the orange count. If price falls further, either directly or after a rebound, this is the area where the analyst would assess whether the wider pullback is developing along the proposed path.
I prefer that explanation to treating a decimal as a target with no context. The earlier peaks and breakout activity explain why the area is on the chart; the retracement explains its place in the wave scenario. Each reference gives the analyst a reason to watch the same part of the price history.
The overlap is often called confluence, but it cannot guarantee buying interest. These references come from the same market history, rather than providing independent assurances of a bounce. Price may move through a plotted level before stabilizing or turn before reaching it. I would read this as an area to assess, not a mechanical boundary unless the analyst explicitly defines it that way.
The hourly chart frames the possible bounce
On the one-hour chart, price reacted from the initial daily support and previous September swing highs. The analyst describes that first upward reaction as impulsive: it appears directional rather than hesitant and overlapping. They suggest it could be the A leg within a larger B-wave bounce, which places the immediate recovery inside the wider correction.
That B wave could itself contain an A-B-C sequence. Its opening leg may therefore look strong while the completed rebound remains corrective. The nested count explains why the analyst can recognize an energetic upward reaction without yet treating it as the start of a broader breakout. The first leg has not established the shape of the whole rebound.
I would next look at the pullback within that hourly recovery. The micro-support zone is $106.73 to $108.80, a standard Fibonacci support area that was holding at the time of the assessment. The analyst wants price to defend it. This is a near-term reference for the developing bounce, separate from the deeper daily-chart support.
Holding a higher low would preserve the proposed rebound's shape after its first upward leg. It would give the analyst a reason to keep the short-term recovery scenario open. The hourly test concerns whether that bounce can develop; it does not answer all the questions posed by the daily chart.
The overhead resistance area is $111.66 to $120.16, where traders watch for selling interest that could interrupt the rise. The creator sees a possible move toward $113.59 to $115.55 within that area, with further consolidation first. In this context, consolidation means price spends time in a relatively contained range instead of extending decisively in one direction.
The weekend expectation depends on the rebound structure holding together. A recovery into resistance could still fit a corrective count, so the destination and the path need to be assessed together. I would read the projected area as the possible reach of this bounce, not as a promise that getting there would establish a lasting reversal.
What would support a more meaningful low
The analyst's stronger condition is a five-wave break above the upper resistance boundary. That would indicate, in their framework, that a more meaningful low is already in place. The condition combines price and structure: the advance must clear the area, and it must do so in the form the analyst associates with a stronger directional move.
A three-wave rise would instead fit the proposed B-wave bounce and keep the wider fourth-wave pullback in play. Both possibilities involve rising price at first. The difference emerges as the swings develop, which is why the direction of the first reaction cannot distinguish them on its own.
I would read "confirmation" as stronger evidence within the model. At the time of the assessment, the analyst considered the upward move too small to confirm a breakout toward new highs. There was a reaction to support, but not yet a developed sequence capable of supporting that larger conclusion.
This leaves room for an unresolved middle stage. A rebound can be underway while the correction remains unfinished and several daily paths stay open. The analyst does not have to decide immediately that either a major top has formed or the entire pullback has ended. The next movements can supply evidence that the initial reaction lacks.
For a later update, the useful comparison is between the new price structure and this stated threshold. An extended move may justify a stronger reading, while a limited rebound may leave the original interpretation intact. I would want a changed conclusion tied to changed evidence, not merely to a different wave label attached to the same modest recovery.
Where the framework can mislead
A plausible scenario can be mistaken for a forecast that must happen. The creator's outlook includes alternatives and conditions; stripping those away would make the weekend bounce sound more certain than the analysis supports. The distinction matters when a conditional chart view is shortened into a direction call without its supporting tests.
Wave counting also creates a risk of fitting the explanation to the result. Smaller patterns sit inside larger ones, giving an analyst several ways to describe developing price action. I would check whether the labels remain connected to observable conditions, particularly when an unexpected move prompts a revised count. Otherwise, it becomes difficult to assess whether the earlier scenario held up.
Shorter time frames add noise. A directional-looking hourly move can remain a small part of a daily correction. Switching scales without keeping that relationship intact can make a modest rebound appear more significant than the larger chart supports. The hourly and daily readings should stay connected even when they describe different parts of the movement.
Markets can also react to information or changes in buying and selling pressure that price history did not anticipate. Technical signals can fail, and additional swings can make a previously clear structure harder to read. A support or resistance line organizes the analysis; it cannot compel market participants to act at that location.
I would also separate exact calculation from forecasting accuracy. Fibonacci tools produce precise levels from selected reference points, but choosing those points requires judgment. The resulting decimal is precise; the future response is uncertain. Numerical detail alone does not make a wave scenario more reliable.
Execution risks remain separate from the quality of a chart interpretation. Slippage can cause an order to fill at a different price from the one expected, especially during fast moves. Leverage, or borrowed exposure, magnifies losses as well as gains. A brief adverse move can have consequences even if the broader scenario later develops.
A stronger low needs the stated evidence
The two chart scales have different jobs in this analysis. The hourly structure tracks the rebound's development; the daily structure places it within the larger pullback. I would keep that division when comparing updates. An improvement on the smaller chart should not become a long-term conclusion without evidence from the larger structure.
If the analyst's language changes from "a bounce is possible" to "the correction is over," the reason for that change should be identifiable. Price moving upward for a while may be consistent with the original bounce scenario. It does not, by itself, explain why the analyst has moved to a stronger conclusion about the low.
For the corrective route, the next assessment concerns the response at overhead resistance and any decline that follows. For the stronger route, it concerns whether the advance meets the specified structure requirement. These tests give a later update something concrete to answer, even though both scenarios begin with an upward reaction.
I would retain the original conditions before considering a revised count. That makes it possible to distinguish an update supported by new swings from an explanation adjusted only after the event. For this Solana setup, a claim of a more meaningful low has a specific standard to meet: the five-wave break above resistance.
