Education
NVDA GEX – Market Structure Map Before EarningsNVDA reports after today’s close, with the August 28 options market pricing an approximately ±14-point move through Friday. From spot near 210.15, that frames a rough 196–224 event range.
That range is not a directional forecast or a hard boundary. It does, however, align closely with the current GEX structure: the upper boundary crosses the 220–222.5 call cluster, while the lower boundary reaches through 200 toward 195.
🔶 Earnings / Positioning 🔶
NVDA is trading almost exactly at the 210 HVL, with the transition band extending to 212.5. Although spot is technically above HVL, the margin is minimal, so the stock does not have a clean positive-regime cushion before the event.
An earnings gap may skip intermediate levels. The important information will be where price finds acceptance after the initial reaction.
🔶 Upside Structure 🔶
👉 220 – C3 + CV/nCV : strongest August 28 call-volume strike on the refreshed feed.
👉 222.5 – C2 : sits near the upper expected-move boundary.
👉 230 – C1 : dominant call wall and major structural ceiling.
Confluence at 230:
C1 — highest call NETGEX
Ab1 — largest absolute gamma
COI / nCOI / AbOI — dominant call and total open-interest cluster
D+ — strongest positive delta exposure
This makes 230 the primary upside reaction zone. Acceptance above 222.5 opens 225 and then 230. Only a clear hold above 230 would enter the positive extension zone and create gamma squeeze potential beyond C1.
🔶 Downside Structure 🔶
👉 205 – P3 : first downside reference.
👉 200 – P1 : strongest put wall and major put-side cluster.
👉 195 – P2 : next reference below P1, close to the lower expected-move boundary.
Confluence at 200:
P1 — strongest put wall
POI — highest put open interest
PV / nPV — strongest put-volume concentration
D− — strongest negative delta exposure
A break and acceptance below 200 would enter the negative extension zone, creating downside gamma squeeze risk toward 195.
🔶 Options Sentiment 🔶
CALL$ 32.2% means equivalent-distance calls are priced 32.2% higher than corresponding puts. This is call pricing skew—not a bullish directional signal.
The Options Oscillator’s green histogram is slightly fading from its recent August peak.
IVRank 35.5
IVx 44.1 | IVx 5dCh +0.61%
CALL$ 32.2% — call pricing skew
Implied move approximately ±14 points through August 28
🔶 Technical Context 🔶
50 SMA near 210.95 reinforces the immediate HVL area
200 SMA near 195.81 aligns with P2 and the lower expected-move boundary
🔶 Key Structure to Watch 🔶
210–212.5 — regime pivot and transition band
220–224 — call cluster and upper expected-move area
200–195 — put cluster and lower expected-move area
The key question is whether the post-earnings market accepts above 222.5 and challenges 230—or breaks 200 and extends toward 195.
This material is for educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice or a recommendation. NVIDIA – Tonight’s Earnings in the SpotlightNVIDIA is the world’s biggest company by market capitalisation with a valuation of $5.16 trillion (August 25th), a considerable distance ahead of Apple in second place who are valued at $4.52 trillion. The sheer size of the company may force stock traders to closely monitor tonight’s quarterly revenue update, released after the market close.
It may be worthwhile noting that as the release day for the company’s much anticipated Q2 earnings have been drawing closer its shares have been under pressure. In fact, before yesterday’s 2.15% rally, the NVIDIA share price had fallen for 7 consecutive sessions, taking the price from 227.90 (August 17th high) down to a low of 207.55 (August 24th low). A key reason for the decline may have been news out last week that NVIDIA’s biggest customers had been told of incoming price rises of 15% for the servers holding their AI chips which helped to weigh on sentiment.
Later tonight, the outcome of the actual earnings release and the earnings call with company executives could be a pivotal moment for the short-term direction of NVIDIA’s share price. Despite the recent uncertainty, expectations are still high for a doubling of revenue on the previous quarter, however traders may also be looking out for insights into the strength of future revenue, the impact of rising costs on margins and how executives see the threat of rising competition in the space.
Technical Update: Earnings to See Deeper Sell-Off Risks?
The latest NVIDIA earnings update, due to be released this evening after the New York close, is set to be an important sentiment driver for the share price and could be watched closely by traders.
Ahead of the release, it can often be useful to reassess the technical backdrop and identify potential key support and resistance levels that may influence the direction of the NVIDIA share price once the results are known.
Potential Key Support Levels
From the August 17th high (227.90) into the August 24th low (207.55), NVIDIA prices have fallen by nearly 9%. However, with a bounce developing during Tuesday’s price activity, it may now be Monday’s low at 207.55 that represents the first key support level. Traders’ initial focus following the earnings release may be on how well this support holds any future declines in price, as breaks below this level could result in further downside momentum.
As the chart above shows, if closes below 207.55 do materialise, focus may shift to the next possible support at 204.45 (61.8% retracement of the July 29th to August 17th strength). If this level were also to give way, the next support may then be 198.09 (August 3rd low), possibly further if that in turn is breached.
Potential Key Resistance Levels
As impressive as Tuesday’s rally may have appeared, price strength remained below a possible resistance level at 215.56 (38.2% retracement of the August 17th to 24th decline) before activity turned lower again into Tuesday’s close. This development could identify the 215.56 level as the first key short term resistance to monitor.
As the chart above shows, if a more sustained period of strength is to develop, successful closes above 215.56 may be needed to shift momentum toward higher levels. Such moves, if seen, could open the way for further upside moves toward 220.38 (61.8% retracement), and possibly then 227.90 (August 17th high).
The material provided here has not been prepared accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such is considered to be a marketing communication. Whilst it is not subject to any prohibition on dealing ahead of the dissemination of investment research, we will not seek to take any advantage before providing it to our clients.
Pepperstone doesn’t represent that the material provided here is accurate, current or complete, and therefore shouldn’t be relied upon as such. The information, whether from a third party or not, isn’t to be considered as a recommendation; or an offer to buy or sell; or the solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any security, financial product or instrument; or to participate in any particular trading strategy. It does not take into account readers’ financial situation or investment objectives. We advise any readers of this content to seek their own advice. Without the approval of Pepperstone, reproduction or redistribution of this information isn’t permitted.
The Confluence Principle in Smoothed Oscillator Desig● 🧠 The Conceptual Origin of Smoothed Momentum Trailing Systems
- The intellectual lineage of this framework traces back to a foundational problem in technical analysis: the raw oscillator, in its native form, is far too erratic to serve as a reliable directional arbiter. Classical momentum measures fluctuate violently on a bar-to-bar basis, generating a stream of noise that obscures rather than reveals the underlying directional current of a market. The conceptual innovation here lies in treating momentum not as a static reading to be compared against fixed thresholds, but as a smoothed, adaptive quantity that develops its own internal trailing reference line, one that only shifts when statistically meaningful movement occurs.
- This approach borrows philosophically from adaptive filtering theory found in signal processing, where a system distinguishes between true signal and background noise by calibrating its sensitivity to the recent volatility of the underlying variable itself. Rather than applying a rigid, one-size-fits-all threshold, the framework's trailing reference expands or contracts based on the average magnitude of recent momentum swings, meaning the system inherently adjusts its tolerance for what constitutes noise versus what constitutes a genuine shift in directional pressure.
- The economic rationale beneath this mechanism is rooted in the belief that price behavior is fractal and regime-dependent: a market in a low-volatility grind requires a tighter trailing sensitivity to detect emerging moves, while a market experiencing expansion requires a wider berth to avoid being whipsawed by transient noise. By anchoring the trailing calculation to a volatility-derived measure rather than a fixed numerical constant, the concept becomes self-adjusting across market conditions without requiring constant manual recalibration by the practitioner.
● 📊 Narrative Technical Analysis
- At its structural core, the framework begins by smoothing a bounded momentum oscillator through an exponential averaging process, producing a curve that reacts to changes in directional pressure while suppressing single-bar noise. This smoothed curve then becomes the input for a secondary layer of analysis: the calculation of an adaptive trailing level derived from the average true range of the smoothed oscillator's own volatility, effectively creating a dynamic band that hugs the smoothed line during stable conditions and widens during turbulent ones.
- The crossing behavior between the smoothed momentum curve and its self-generated trailing level constitutes the primary structural event of the entire framework. When the smoothed curve breaches its trailing boundary from below, this is interpreted as the exhaustion of selling pressure and the beginning of an accumulation phase; the inverse breach, from above to below, signals the exhaustion of buying pressure and a transition toward distribution. These crossing events are not treated as isolated occurrences but as milestones within a broader structural narrative of the underlying trend's maturation cycle.
- A secondary confluence layer, calculated at a different sensitivity setting, serves as a corroborating witness to the primary signal. This dual-pathway architecture echoes the logic of consolidation box mapping, where a market's structural integrity is only confirmed once multiple independent measures agree on directional bias. When both the fast-reacting and slow-reacting layers align in their assessment of trend direction, the resulting confluence carries substantially more probabilistic weight than either measure would in isolation, reducing the incidence of false starts that plague single-layer momentum systems.
- The framework further incorporates an optional directional strength filter derived from the divergence between positive and negative directional movement, a classical measure of trend conviction. This filter acts as a gatekeeper, ensuring that momentum-based crossing events are only granted significance when the broader market structure exhibits sufficient directional strength, thereby filtering out crossings that occur during genuinely rangebound, directionless conditions where momentum signals are structurally unreliable regardless of their apparent clarity.
- A higher-timeframe bias filter introduces a top-down structural hierarchy into the analysis, requiring that a lower-timeframe signal align with the prevailing bias calculated on a broader temporal canvas. This reflects a well-established principle in multi-timeframe market structure theory: that the higher timeframe establishes the dominant liquidity shelf and the lower timeframe merely offers tactical entry timing within that broader structural context, never contradicting it.
- Volatility itself is metabolized into the framework's risk architecture through an average true range calculation that translates raw price volatility into proportional distance measures for protective and target levels. This creates a self-scaling risk framework that adapts its absolute price distances to the instrument's current volatility regime, avoiding the structural flaw of static, arbitrarily fixed distances that become either meaninglessly tight or excessively wide as volatility conditions evolve.
● 🏛️ Institutional vs. Retail Perspective
- Institutional market participants approach smoothed momentum trailing systems through the lens of order flow validation rather than standalone signal generation. For a desk managing substantial capital, a momentum crossing event is never sufficient justification for position initiation on its own; instead, it functions as one confirming data point layered atop volume profile analysis, liquidity mapping, and an assessment of where resting orders are likely concentrated. The institutional view treats the smoothed trailing level as a probabilistic filter that reduces the search space of viable entries, not as an autonomous decision-making mechanism.
- Retail participants, by contrast, frequently gravitate toward treating a single crossing event as a complete and sufficient trading thesis, extracting the signal from its broader structural context and applying it mechanically across instruments and timeframes without regard to the surrounding liquidity environment. This tendency toward signal literalism, divorced from an appreciation of the deeper mechanics of consolidation box formation and volume distribution, represents one of the most persistent sources of underperformance among less experienced practitioners.
- The confluence architecture embedded in the dual-layer design partially bridges this gap by imposing a structural requirement that mirrors, in simplified form, the institutional practice of seeking multiple independent confirmations before acting. Where an institutional desk might synthesize order flow, volume delta, and macro positioning data, the confluence mechanism synthesizes fast and slow momentum readings, offering the retail practitioner a rudimentary analog to the multi-factor validation process employed by more sophisticated market participants, albeit without direct access to the order-flow data that ultimately drives institutional conviction.
- A further point of divergence concerns time horizon and patience. Institutional capital, often constrained by mandate and benchmark considerations, can afford to wait through extended periods of ambiguous signal behavior in pursuit of high-conviction setups, whereas retail practitioners frequently exhibit an urgency bias, feeling compelled to act on every crossing event regardless of the surrounding higher-timeframe context, a behavioral asymmetry that the higher-timeframe bias filter is conceptually designed to counteract by enforcing a measure of top-down discipline.
● ⚙️ Strategic Variance Across Market Regimes
• Trending Conditions
- In a well-established trending regime, this class of framework approaches its conceptual ideal. Directional persistence produces momentum readings that remain consistently on one side of the adaptive trailing level for extended durations, punctuated only by shallow, temporary crossings during minor corrective pullbacks that the trailing mechanism, by design, is calibrated to absorb without triggering a full reversal signal. The directional strength filter, when engaged, further reinforces signal quality during these conditions by confirming that the measured conviction behind the trend remains structurally intact.
• Ranging Conditions
- Rangebound, directionless markets represent the most challenging environment for any momentum-trailing architecture, this one included. In the absence of sustained directional pressure, the smoothed momentum curve oscillates around its trailing level with far greater frequency, generating a higher density of crossing events that carry diminished predictive value. It is precisely within this regime that the directional strength filter and the multi-layer confluence requirement earn their conceptual keep, suppressing a meaningful proportion of the false signals that would otherwise proliferate during structurally ambiguous, low-conviction sideways action.
• High Volatility Conditions
- During episodes of volatility expansion, such as those accompanying macroeconomic announcements or sudden liquidity shocks, the adaptive nature of the trailing calculation becomes both a strength and a source of complexity. The trailing level widens in response to the surge in underlying momentum volatility, which helps prevent premature signal reversal but simultaneously introduces greater lag into the system's responsiveness. The volatility-derived risk architecture governing protective and target distances also expands correspondingly, meaning that position sizing and risk tolerance must be reassessed by the practitioner during these regimes, since the same nominal risk parameter translates into a materially different absolute price distance than it would during calmer conditions.
● 🧠 Psychological Architecture
- The implementation of any smoothed trailing framework is as much an exercise in psychological discipline as it is in mathematical construction, because traders are consistently poor judges of their own real-time risk tolerance once capital is genuinely at stake. The very design of a trailing mechanism, one that deliberately resists reversing on minor countertrend movement, exists precisely because human cognition tends toward premature signal abandonment, exiting positions at the first sign of adverse movement rather than allowing a statistically sound framework to run its intended course.
- Loss aversion, the well-documented tendency to feel the pain of a loss more acutely than the pleasure of an equivalent gain, manifests acutely in the practitioner's relationship with confluence-based systems. When the fast and slow layers of momentum diverge, or when a higher-timeframe filter contradicts a lower-timeframe signal, the practitioner experiences genuine cognitive discomfort, an urge to override the system's built-in patience in favor of immediate action. Resisting this urge, and allowing the structural hierarchy of the framework to filter out premature entries, represents one of the more difficult psychological disciplines a systematic trader must cultivate.
- Confirmation bias presents a further persistent threat to the disciplined application of any multi-filter framework. A practitioner predisposed toward a bullish thesis will naturally place disproportionate emphasis on the bullish-aligned filters while mentally discounting a bearish higher-timeframe bias or a failed directional strength confirmation, effectively deconstructing the very confluence architecture that was designed to protect against exactly this form of selective reasoning. Genuine discipline requires treating every filter component as equally weighted evidence, regardless of which conclusion the practitioner privately favors.
- The waiting period inherent in multi-layer confirmation systems also imposes a distinct form of psychological friction often described as the fear of missing out. As momentum begins shifting on the fast layer while the slower confluence layer has not yet confirmed, practitioners frequently feel compelled to front-run the system's own logic, entering before all structural conditions have been satisfied. This impulse undermines the statistical edge that the multi-filter design was constructed to provide, since the very purpose of layered confirmation is to accept a marginally later entry in exchange for a materially higher probability of directional correctness.
● 🎲 Risk & Probability Sagas
- The mathematical philosophy underpinning the risk architecture of this framework rests on the principle of volatility-normalized position construction, wherein protective distances are expressed not as fixed price increments but as multiples of a rolling measure of average true range. This approach acknowledges a fundamental truth of market behavior: risk cannot be meaningfully quantified in absolute price terms across changing volatility regimes, since a given nominal distance might represent a trivial fluctuation during high-volatility conditions and an enormous, disproportionate risk during quiet, low-volatility conditions.
- Extending this volatility-normalized foundation, the framework's approach to reward targets follows a proportional risk-to-reward architecture, where potential profit objectives are calculated as direct multiples of the initial risk distance rather than as arbitrary price levels. This reflects a deeper probabilistic truth embedded in professional risk management: the long-run viability of any systematic approach depends not on the win rate of any individual signal but on the asymmetry between the magnitude of realized gains relative to realized losses across a sufficiently large sample of occurrences.
- The philosophical foundation of layered profit-taking, structured across multiple sequential reward tiers rather than a single binary exit point, acknowledges the inherent uncertainty of forecasting the full extent of any directional move. By partitioning the reward objective into successive tiers, the framework implicitly recognizes that no single practitioner, and no single mathematical model, can reliably predict the precise termination point of a market movement in advance, and that a probabilistic distribution of partial exits produces a smoother, more statistically robust equity trajectory than an all-or-nothing wager on a single terminal target.
- Ultimately, the probabilistic saga embedded within any risk-normalized framework is one of humility before uncertainty. No combination of filters, confluences, or adaptive trailing calculations can transform an inherently probabilistic endeavor into a deterministic one. The mathematics of asymmetric risk-to-reward exists not to eliminate the possibility of loss but to ensure that the accumulated weight of favorable asymmetries, compounded across a sufficiently large number of occurrences, produces a statistically sound expectation over time, provided the practitioner maintains the discipline to apply the framework consistently rather than selectively.
Based on the concepts previously discussed, the QQE Trend Confluence indicator was developed to reflect the academic and technical principles outlined in this article.
● ⚠️ Risk Disclaimer
- The concepts discussed in this article are presented for educational and analytical purposes only and do not constitute financial advice, investment recommendations, or a guarantee of future performance. Trading and investing in financial markets involves substantial risk of loss and is not suitable for every individual. Past behavior of any market structure or momentum-based framework does not guarantee similar behavior in the future, and market conditions are inherently unpredictable. Readers should conduct their own independent research and consult with a qualified financial professional before making any trading or investment decisions. Any application of the concepts described herein is undertaken entirely at the reader's own discretion and risk. 
Education
Goldman Sachs Could Be Breaking OutGoldman Sachs has pulled back after hitting record highs, and some traders may think it’s breaking out.
The first pattern on today’s chart is the rally on July 14 after earnings beat estimates. That may reflect bullish fundamentals.
Second, the Wall Street bank made a series of lower highs from late July through last week. It closed above that falling trendline yesterday -- plus its 50-day simple moving average. That might be viewed as a breakout.
Third, GS bottomed around $1,000 in early July and $980 in late July. It bounced slightly above $1,000 again last week. The rounded basing pattern could suggest it’s built support around the four-digit mark.
Fourth, tightening Bollinger Bandwidth highlights the stock’s narrow range of motion. That volatility squeeze might create space for prices to expand.
Finally, the 8-day exponential moving average (EMA) is nearing a potential cross above the 21-day EMA. That could reflect an improving short-term trend.
TradeStation has, for decades, advanced the trading industry, providing access to stocks, options and futures. If you're born to trade, we could be for you. Learn more here about TradingView’s Broker of the Year!
Past performance, whether actual or indicated by historical tests of strategies, is no guarantee of future performance or success. There is a possibility that you may sustain a loss equal to or greater than your entire investment regardless of which asset class you trade (equities, options or futures); therefore, you should not invest or risk money that you cannot afford to lose. Online trading is not suitable for all investors. View the document titled Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options at www.TradeStation.com . Before trading any asset class, customers must read the relevant risk disclosure statements on www.TradeStation.com . System access and trade placement and execution may be delayed or fail due to market volatility and volume, quote delays, system and software errors, Internet traffic, outages and other factors.
Securities and futures trading is offered to self-directed customers by TradeStation Securities, Inc., a broker-dealer registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and a futures commission merchant licensed with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission). TradeStation Securities is a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the National Futures Association, and a number of exchanges.
TradeStation Securities, Inc. and TradeStation Technologies, Inc. are each wholly owned subsidiaries of TradeStation Group, Inc., both operating, and providing products and services, under the TradeStation brand and trademark. When applying for, or purchasing, accounts, subscriptions, products and services, it is important that you know which company you will be dealing with. Visit www.TradeStation.com for further important information explaining what this means. 
Short
Right Direction, Wrong Outcome: 3 Clocks in a 15-Minute BTC MoveMost short-window BTC mistakes begin with a statement that can be completely true:
“Bitcoin is moving up.”
The mistake is treating that statement as a complete decision.
Inside a fixed 15-minute window, three moving variables—or “clocks”—are running at the same time:
1. Direction: Which side currently controls price?
2. Distance: Where is price relative to the relevant target?
3. Time: How much of the window and measurement process remains?
A trader can read the first clock correctly and still reach the wrong conclusion because the other two clocks disagree.
1. The Direction Clock
Direction is what most traders notice first.
Price breaks upward. Momentum increases. A large green candle forms. The immediate conclusion is “Up.”
That move is evidence, but it is not the entire answer.
An upward impulse could represent:
- Sustainable continuation
- A temporary liquidity sweep
- Short covering
- The final burst before exhaustion
- Noise inside a larger range
Direction should therefore be judged through structure and follow-through:
- Are highs and lows advancing?
- Does price hold after the initial impulse?
- Are pullbacks being absorbed?
- Is momentum expanding or already fading?
Direction describes the current condition. It does not promise where price will be several minutes later.
2. The Distance Clock
Being bullish is not the same as being close enough to clear a specific target.
Suppose BTC is moving upward while remaining $40 below the relevant threshold. Whether that gap is small or large depends on current volatility.
A $40 move may be ordinary during fast expansion and unusually large during quiet compression.
A useful comparison is:
Target distance ÷ recent typical short-term movement
Distance must also be measured against the correct chart reference.
Different BTC feeds can display slightly different prices because they use different exchanges, currency pairs, liquidity, and calculation methods. A target taken from one reference may not belong at the identical visible price on another chart.
Conceptually:
Mapped target = Official target + Estimated chart-to-reference difference
That difference is not necessarily permanent. It can expand or contract during fast conditions, so a mapped target remains an estimate—not a guarantee.
3. The Time Clock
The same signal can mean something entirely different depending on when it appears.
Consider the same situation:
BTC is moving upward and sits $25 above a mapped target.
With 12 minutes remaining, there is substantial time for continuation, consolidation, or complete reversal.
With four minutes remaining, holding above the target may carry more information—but volatility can still erase the lead.
With 20 seconds remaining, there is less time for a large reversal, but the final visible tick may not be the deciding measurement.
Some short-duration contracts use an averaging window rather than one last price. If that applies, a late print above the target may not be enough to pull the entire average above it.
Always understand what is actually being measured:
- One trade?
- One closing price?
- An index?
- An average across multiple observations?
A chart can be accurate for its own data source while still differing from another benchmark or settlement calculation.
When the Three Clocks Agree
A more coherent short-window setup exists when:
- Direction shows sustained control
- Distance is reasonable relative to current movement
- Remaining time supports the move
- Price is holding rather than repeatedly crossing the target
- The measurement method is understood
Even then, the outcome is not guaranteed.
When the clocks disagree, caution matters more than conviction.
Examples include:
- Strong direction but an unrealistic target gap
- Price above the target but excessive time remaining
- Very little time remaining while price is trapped inside normal noise
- A late reversal that invalidates the original directional read
- An unstable difference between the chart and reference source
The No-Decision State
The most overlooked short-window decision is not choosing either side.
When price repeatedly crosses the target, momentum keeps reversing, or the target sits inside ordinary noise, the market may not be offering a clean conclusion.
That is not a failure to analyze.
It is the analysis.
Forcing an Up or Down opinion every 15 minutes turns uncertainty into impulse. A disciplined framework must be allowed to say:
- Direction unclear
- Target contested
- Time insufficient
- Conditions unstable
- No decision
A Pre-Decision Checklist
Before making any short-window BTC decision, ask:
1. Which BTC data source am I viewing?
2. What exact target or reference is being measured?
3. Does that target need to be mapped onto my chart?
4. How large is the target gap relative to recent movement?
5. How much time remains?
6. Is price expanding, compressing, churning, or reversing?
7. Does the outcome use one price or a measurement window?
8. What condition would invalidate the current read?
9. Is this genuinely clear—or am I forcing an answer?
Final Takeaway
Direction is only one part of a time-limited BTC decision.
Target mapping explains where price needs to be. Volatility gives the distance context. Time determines how much opportunity remains for continuation or reversal.
No tool can remove uncertainty. A useful chart should organize the evidence, expose disagreement, and make uncertainty harder to ignore—not turn a probabilistic decision into a promise.
The goal is not to force an Up or Down answer every 15 minutes.
The goal is to recognize when direction, distance, and time agree—and when the honest answer is no decision. 
Education
US 100 – Event Risk Keeping Volatility ElevatedIt’s a rarity for a week to go by in financial markets without technology stocks that dominate the US 100 index, grabbing the headlines in some form and it seems that this week is no exception. Sentiment and prices dipped early on Monday after Alibaba raised $10 billion in Hong Kong’s biggest ever secondary share sale to help fund its goal of being a global AI leader. This brought back concerns about the size of AI capital expenditure to the fore which saw chipmakers within the US 100 fall and led the index to drop from its initial highs around 29404 down to a low of 28873 before some dip buying stemmed the decline.
Traders are already on edge this week as it is, with Nvidia, the AI bellwether and world’s most valuable company, due to release its latest results after the close on Wednesday. Nvidia carries the biggest weighting in the US 100 and option markets are currently pricing in the chance of a 4.6% move in the stock post results according to Bloomberg, a move that if it happened could have a significant impact on US 100 index volatility.
Not only that but traders are also monitoring the response from Iran to the US switching its approach from missile strikes to a strategy of economic isolation to potentially bring some form of resolution to the Middle East conflict. How Tehran responds could also be an important factor influencing sentiment towards US indices.
Then finally on Friday, Fed Chair Kevin Warsh is due to deliver his keynote speech from the Fed’s Jackson Hole Symposium at 1500 BST. US 100 traders may be influenced by his views on US government finances, surging bond yields and central bank independence. Any updates he provides on interest rate policy could also be of pivotal importance given the uncertainty about what US policymakers may decide when they next meet on September 16th.
Technical Update: 29039 The First Key Support Focus?
While the period of price strength seen in the US 100 index between the July 29th low at 27050 and the August 17th high of 30246 was an impressive move, it appears the upside momentum may have failed against a potentially strong resistance band from which price weakness emerged last week.
This resistance band stands between 30246 all the way up to 30776 and equates to a series of previous failure highs posted between June 3rd and August 17th. Traders may view this series of highs as a strong barrier to further upside and could well be an important resistance area to monitor.
On the downside, the first key support focus could be 29039. This level is equal to the 38.2% Fibonacci retracement of the July 29th to August 17th strength. While this level was tested on Monday, it held on a closing basis, adding to its potential as an important support to watch in the short term.
Potential Resistance Levels:
While the previous cluster of highs between 30246 and 30776 may be the key resistance range, there could be a lower level for traders to monitor at 29580 which is equal to half of the latest decline. Closing breaks above 29580 could increase potential for a more sustained retest of the August 17th peak at 30246, possibly higher.
However, as outlined earlier in the technical update, for upside momentum to be reestablished it may take closes above the June 3rd high at 30776 to confirm potential for further gains toward 32212 (38.2% Fibonacci extension of the June 3rd to July 29th decline), then 33102 (61.8% extension).
Potential Support Levels:
Currently, the first potential support level at 29039 (38.2% retracement) is still holding the current phase of weakness and closes below this level may be necessary to indicate that risks are turning toward renewed declines.
Closing breaks below 29039 could lead to further downside momentum, opening scope toward 28551 (50% retracement), and then possibly the deeper 61.8% retracement at 28255.
The material provided here has not been prepared accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such is considered to be a marketing communication. Whilst it is not subject to any prohibition on dealing ahead of the dissemination of investment research, we will not seek to take any advantage before providing it to our clients.
Pepperstone doesn’t represent that the material provided here is accurate, current or complete, and therefore shouldn’t be relied upon as such. The information, whether from a third party or not, isn’t to be considered as a recommendation; or an offer to buy or sell; or the solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any security, financial product or instrument; or to participate in any particular trading strategy. It does not take into account readers’ financial situation or investment objectives. We advise any readers of this content to seek their own advice. Without the approval of Pepperstone, reproduction or redistribution of this information isn’t permitted. 
Long
Long 
Gold – Room for Extension or a Potential Short Term Top?At the start of August Gold traders received official confirmation that global central banks led by China’s PBOC remained buyers of Gold when prices dipped down below 4000 in mid-July. This news, coupled with a cooling of Federal Reserve rate hike expectations, helped support a technical breakout above 1 month range highs at 4166 (July 22nd high) on August 5th.
While the up move initially took a brief pause around the 4450 area to absorb a wave of profit taking, last week’s surprise intervention by the US Treasury in the bond market to stem a troublesome rise in yields had the knock-on effect of driving down the US dollar. This in turn helped make Gold, which is priced in the currency more appealing to global investors, helping push Gold prices up to 3-month highs at 4632 on Friday, before drifting off to close the week at 4605.
Looking forward, with Gold jumping 0.8% to 4642 on the Monday open, traders may be keen to hear further details of new fiscal initiatives to address soaring government borrowing costs that US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant teased markets with at the back end of last week. They could also be preparing for the keynote speech from Fed Chair Kevin Warsh which is due to be delivered during the Fed’s Jackson Hole Symposium on Friday (1500 BST). Any further details he may reveal regarding whether policymakers could hike interest rates in mid-September may play a big role in determining if Gold prices push up to new highs or retrace back down to lower levels.
Given that the initial move above 4166 and then 4450 was supported by the technical backdrop, taking time to review the current technical update below and take stock of potential key support and resistance levels, may be helpful for setting risk and reward parameters across the next 5 trading days.
Technical Update: Could a Resistance Break Open Scope to Higher Levels?
Recovery themes have dominated activity for Gold across July and August, with the popular shiny metal staging an 18% rebound after a prolonged phase of weakness between the January 29th high at 5598 and the June 30th low of 3943. This on-going recovery could be encouraging for Gold bulls, especially as prices closed on Friday above what might have been expected to be an important resistance level.
As the chart above shows, the latest activity in Gold has seen a break above 4573, a level equal to the 38.2% Fibonacci retracement of the entire January to June decline.
Potential Resistance Focus:
The successful close above resistance at 4537 (38.2% retracement) could open the way for further attempts at price strength over upcoming sessions. Within technical analysis, closes above a 38.2% Fibonacci retracement level can shift the focus for traders to identifying higher resistance points that could now be tested.
In this scenario, traders may now be looking to the 4770/74 area, which contains the 50% retracement and May 12th high, as the next potential resistance focus. If this range is broken on a closing basis, it may open the possibility for tests of 4889 (April 17th high), and then 4966 (61.8% Fibonacci level).
Potential Support Focus:
Of course, a close above a 38.2% retracement level isn’t a guarantee of further price strength, so it remains prudent to monitor possible support levels in case sentiment turns down again. As such, 4488 (half of last week’s strength) may be viewed as the first key support. Closing breaks below this level could signal the potential for further Gold price weakness.
If 4488 were breached on a closing basis, downside risks could turn toward 4385 which is the 38.2% retracement of the rally from the June 30th low (3943) into the latest high on August 24th (4657). A closing break below 4385 might then lead to further declines, shifting focus for moves back down toward 4301 (50% level).
The material provided here has not been prepared accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such is considered to be a marketing communication. Whilst it is not subject to any prohibition on dealing ahead of the dissemination of investment research, we will not seek to take any advantage before providing it to our clients.
Pepperstone doesn’t represent that the material provided here is accurate, current or complete, and therefore shouldn’t be relied upon as such. The information, whether from a third party or not, isn’t to be considered as a recommendation; or an offer to buy or sell; or the solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any security, financial product or instrument; or to participate in any particular trading strategy. It does not take into account readers’ financial situation or investment objectives. We advise any readers of this content to seek their own advice. Without the approval of Pepperstone, reproduction or redistribution of this information isn’t permitted.
GC GEX - Breakout Above 4690Gold futures are extending a strong daily rally, with price near 4731 after clearing the 4690 call wall. That strike was the largest call NETGEX on the map — resistance that has now flipped into the first support of the breakout.
The bid is not only technical. Last week the bond market set the cross-asset tone. The 10-year finished near 4.73% and the 30-year moved toward 5.27% , the highest area since 2007. After that selloff, the Treasury said it would at least double selected long-dated buybacks in the 10- to 30-year sector. Yields dipped, the dollar weakened, and gold and bitcoin both caught the same bid. What matters for gold is that the metal kept grinding higher even after the long end recovered most of that buyback relief . That is less a simple "yields down, gold up" tape and more a dollar-weakness / fiscal-credibility bid — the same liquidity signal that lifted crypto, expressed in bullion.
Oil and Middle East supply risk added a second inflation input. This week still has July PCE and Chair Warsh at Jackson Hole , so the rates narrative can reprice quickly. The GEX map is what frames how that reaction may travel.
🔶 Regime Context 🔶
Price is trading well above 4565 HVL , keeping GC inside a positive GEX regime . Above the gamma flip, price action typically becomes more controlled than it is below HVL. The current rally also sits above both the 50 SMA and the 200 SMA , after price retested the 200 SMA and then accelerated.
🔶 Options Structure Context 🔶
👉 4690 – C1 (highest call NETGEX wall — now cleared)
👉 4850–5000 – call cluster — next upside reference on the profile
With C1 accepted overhead, GC has entered the positive gamma extension zone . That opens gamma squeeze potential toward that call cluster, as long as acceptance holds above the old wall.
🔶 Downside Structure 🔶
👉 4690 – flipped C1 — first breakout support
👉 4565 – HVL — regime pivot
👉 3585 – P1 — strongest put wall, well below the current range
Losing 4690 would turn this from an extension into a failed breakout test. A daily move back through 4565 HVL would be the larger regime warning. The 3585 put wall is a distant floor, not nearby structure.
🔶 Options Sentiment 🔶
CALL$ 72.1% means call options at an equivalent distance from spot are priced 72.1% higher than the corresponding puts — this is elevated call pricing skew .
On the Options Oscillator, the filled green histogram remains elevated at the right edge — call pricing skew is still strong, not fading from this move.
IVRank 39.1
CALL$ 72.1% — call pricing skew
🔶 Macro Catalyst 🔶
Treasury's larger long-end buybacks, a weaker dollar, and still-elevated long yields are the fundamental stack behind this surge. PCE and Jackson Hole can reset the rates side of that story. Structure first; headlines second.
🔶 Key Structure to Watch 🔶
4690 — C1, breakout support
4850–5000 — call cluster / extension target
4565 — HVL / regime pivot
3585 — P1, distant put wall
For now, GC is holding in a positive GEX regime above HVL, with the 4690 call wall cleared and price working inside the extension zone.
The key question is whether momentum can carry price into the 4850–5000 call cluster — and how the market reacts once it gets there. Crypto Market Overview: Multi-Leg Breakout After Prolonged RangeAfter weeks of compressed, low-volatility trading that left many assets looking lifeless, crypto markets staged one of their strongest weekly performances in recent memory. Bitcoin broke out of a multi-month range and advanced up to $79500 (Coinbase spot), with several large-cap alts posting even larger percentage gains. The move reversed months of bearish or range-bound sentiment in short order.
Primary drivers
1. Treasury / bond market signal
The U.S. Treasury's decision to at least double the size of its long-dated bond buyback operations helped pull the 30-year yield down. Lower long-end yields improved risk appetite across asset classes. While not quantitative easing, the move was widely interpreted as a supportive liquidity and signaling event for risk assets, including crypto.
On 19 August the Treasury raised the maximum size of its liquidity support buybacks for longer-dated securities from $2 billion to at least $4 billion per operation. The change is effective 9 September and runs through 4 November. The 30-year — which had hit above 5.33% on Tuesday, its highest since June 2007 — fell more than 10 basis points to 5.184% on the announcement.
That's the catalyst. A technical operation in the government bond market, not yet in effect, that moved a yield by a fraction of a percent. And it's credited with a roughly +25% week in bitcoin.
It gets stranger. The move unwound almost immediately — by Thursday the 30-year had given back the entire drop and the 10-year sat at 4.704%, above where it was before the announcement. The long bond finished the week around 5.27%, essentially back where it had been before the Treasury stepped in.
Crypto kept climbing for three more days after the trigger had already reversed. Which tells you something about where the energy was actually stored.
2. Spot ETF buying power
U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $606.29 million in net inflows on 20 August, their largest single day since 1 May, following $517.19 million on the 19th, $189.30 million on the 18th and $297.56 million on the 17th. Four consecutive days, roughly $1.61 billion. Ethereum funds ran a parallel streak, adding $189.15 million on the 19th — their largest single day in ten months — and $221 million on the 20th.
These are actual share creations that require spot purchases and represent one of the more durable sources of demand in the current market structure.
3. Rare short-dominated liquidation event
Derivatives markets saw one of the largest overall liquidation days on record (ranked roughly 7th–8th historically by several data providers). Critically, the vast majority of the forced closures were short positions (estimates of $2.7–3B+ in a single day and over $4B across the core window). Most historic mega-liquidation events have been long liquidations during sell-offs. A short squeeze of this scale is unusual and mechanically amplified the upward move while it lasted.
4. Policy / narrative support
The White House hosted crypto executives the next day, where Trump pushed Congress to pass a fair version of the Clarity Act. Parallel regulatory signals, including SEC rulemaking proposals, added to the tone. All of it helped sentiment. But none of it moved the yield curve, and headlines like these have arrived before without producing a week like this — which is why I'd put them behind the macro and positioning factors above.
Positioning and market character
The preceding period left markets heavily short or under-positioned after a long grind. The combination of a macro catalyst and forced covering produced the classic cascade. Volume and open-interest shifts reflected the intensity of the squeeze. Sentiment indicators flipped rapidly from fear/neutral toward greed territory.
A squeeze on its own is mechanical. Forced buying creates more forced buying, and when the fuel runs out the move usually gives some back. So the more useful question is whether anything underneath it was actual demand. The ETF flows are the strongest evidence that some of it was — those require someone to go out and buy spot. Different quality of demand than a short closed at a loss.
Balanced outlook
Does the breakout have legs? Who knows — I guess we'll find out soon (as Sadie Sink put it when asked about her role in Spider-Man: Brand New Day).
The structural leg that actually held is ETF demand. The other one didn't — long-end yields reversed within a day and finished the week higher, which makes the macro support look more like a sentiment event than a change in conditions. Residual short covering or fresh speculative interest can still contribute.
At the same time, a move of this velocity almost always invites profit-taking, consolidation, or a healthy dig lower to reset leverage and shake out late entrants. Such a pullback would be normal rather than necessarily trend-ending.
Legislative developments (Clarity Act progress or lack thereof) will continue to influence narrative and risk premium, but markets have already begun pricing improved regulatory expectations. Actual passage, if it occurs, could face classic "buy the rumor, sell the news" dynamics after the anticipatory move already seen. Failure or further delay would likely reintroduce uncertainty.
What I'll be watching:
Whether ETF flows hold once price stops going up. Long-end Treasury yields, since this started there and has already partly unwound. Funding and open interest, because a squeeze clears out one side of the book and leaves room for the other. And 15 September, the Senate's first procedural vote on the Clarity Act — expectations are already partly priced, which introduces the usual risk of a sell-the-news reaction even on a good outcome.
Next week should give more clues about whether it holds.
The calendar includes events such as Core PCE (the Fed's preferred inflation gauge), the second estimate of Q2 GDP, and Jackson Hole, where Kevin Warsh delivers his first keynote as Fed chair on Friday 28 August. Watch how Bitcoin holds key levels through these events — sustained support would favor continuation of the upmove; a clean break lower would signal the need for more consolidation.
Overall, the breakout was driven more by positioning and liquidity than by any single headline. The market has shifted from a low-energy range into a more dynamic phase, with the usual crypto volatility that accompanies such transitions.
The weekend has been choppy, and the alts have shown it most — some large caps dropped double digits and recovered most of it inside a session. This piece focuses on bitcoin, but the same drivers run through the rest of the market, usually with more amplitude.
I'll be following it closely from here, and if I'm honest about my own lean it is mildly bullish. I can't make that case from the data above — the data says digest and consolidate. It's a feel, from having watched this market for a long time: crypto tends to move while everyone is still working out what happened last week. Speculation on my part, and I've been wrong before.
What's your read — is this the start of a real breakout, a trap for late buyers, or something in between? Share your thoughts in the comments.
Thank you and enjoy your trading 😊
Long 
Long 
Bitcoin news: BTC reclaims $74,000 as ETFs see $5.3B volumeBitcoin’s latest rally has been backed by a sharp increase in institutional activity. U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded more than $5.3 billion in trading volume as BTC reclaimed $74,000 for the first time in 86 days.
BlackRock’s IBIT dominated activity with $4.44 billion in volume. Fidelity’s FBTC came next at $438 million and Grayscale at $208.8 million. Meanwhile, Bitwise, ARK Invest, VanEck, Morgan Stanley, Franklin Templeton, Invesco, Valkyrie, WisdomTree and Hashdex accounted for the remaining volume as per data.
$517M Flows as Bitcoin Jumps 17%
U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs also attracted $517.19 million in net inflows, their strongest inflow day since May 4. Eight of the 12 funds recorded positive flows. BlackRock’s IBIT led with $284.7 million, followed by ARK and 21Shares’ ARKB at $77.7 million. Fidelity’s FBTC came next at $62.4 million.
The ETF activity came as Bitcoin surged roughly 17% in two days. It added around $11,000 and more than $220 billion to its market capitalization.
The rally has also triggered a major short squeeze. More than $3.6 billion in short positions have been liquidated over the past 72 hours, including $2.75 billion in Bitcoin shorts on Wednesday. Over the following 24 hours, another $783.2 million in Bitcoin positions were liquidated. Of this, $747.7 million came from shorts, according to CoinGlass data.
What Fueled this Rally?
The rally followed the U.S. Treasury Department’s decision to at least double liquidity-support buyback operations for longer-dated nominal coupon securities. This applies in the 10- to 30-year segment.
Additional catalysts included the SEC’s latest crypto proposal. There was also a White House meeting between President Donald Trump and prominent crypto executives, helping trigger the unexpected move higher.
McGlone Warns Rally Could Fade
Despite the surge, Bloomberg’s Mike McGlone remains bearish. He described the move as “a bounce within the purge”, arguing that August can produce short squeezes even during a broader bear market.
McGlone criticized Bitcoin’s volatility and correlation with stocks, saying institutional investors face unfavorable risk-reward characteristics. He also argued that the rapid expansion of the wider crypto market has created excessive supply. Consequently, he expects Bitcoin to potentially roll over by year-end.
While he supports blockchain technology, McGlone argues Bitcoin’s original peer-to-peer cash use case has weakened. This comes with the emergence of crypto-dollar alternatives. Long 
