There’s a moment in every audit when the client slides a folder across the table and says, “Everything you need is in here.” It never is. The interesting entries are always the ones that didn’t make the folder.
Crypto commentary works the same way. Every analyst on your feed has a folder of wins. Almost none of them will show you the drawer where the bad calls went.
I’m a CPA. I don’t get a drawer. So in December 2023, when I started publishing dated Bitcoin calls on LinkedIn and this website, I made myself a rule: everything stays up. The hits, the miss, the original timestamps. This post is the scorecard — the December 2023 call series, the February 2026 misses, and the 2016 gold call that started the whole habit, each one dated, linked to the original article, and graded.
A note on how to read it: everything below is accurate as of this post’s publication date. When a future dated call resolves, it gets graded in a follow-up post — history never gets edited. Grades: HIT (played out as written), PARTIAL (the date or structure worked; the specifics didn’t), MISS (wrong, and said so publicly). And one rule governs every grade: each call is graded against the axis it actually claimed — a time call on its timing, a price call on its price. A call that claimed both gets graded on both.
Call #1: February 6, 2024 — the temporary top
Published December 1, 2023, as “Tuesday February 6, 2024 – Remember this date…“. I wrote: “Will it happen that exact day? Probably not. But into and after 2/6/2024 we are going to look for a temporary top and bottom within 1–2 months from that temporary top.” I added that Bitcoin would “most likely trade sideways or slightly higher for the next 6–8 months.”
What happened: Bitcoin put in a temporary top on March 13, 2024, then went sideways for roughly six to eight months. The timing zone worked. The exact price path didn’t match my script — I expected a cleaner bottom after the top than we got. First lesson of the cycle: it rhymes, it doesn’t repeat.
Grade: PARTIAL. This was a time call, so it’s graded on time: the top window and the sideways stretch landed; the clean bottom I scripted inside the window didn’t.
Call #2: October 8, 2024 — the big date
Published December 18, 2023, under the headline “Tuesday October 8, 2024 – This is the BIG Date!” I told readers to be ready by that date “because the fun is about to begin.”
What happened: price dipped immediately after the date, then ground higher, then took off into the strongest advance of the cycle. Of the four dates, this is the one people still message me about.
Grade: HIT. A time call, graded on time: the date marked the turn into the cycle’s strongest run.
Call #3: June 10, 2025 — the sell-off window
Published on LinkedIn September 25, 2024, as “Tuesday June 10, 2025 – No need to panic!” — and the article opens by disclosing its own provenance: I wrote it in December 2023, and the same analysis sits on page 57 of my free Bitcoin book, published March 2024. Two timestamps, both checkable. The call: a significant sell-off in the vicinity of this date. In the article’s words: “A 40% sell-off would not surprise me at all.”
What happened: Bitcoin dropped 32% from new all-time highs into a low on April 7, 2025. The magnitude was close; the sequence was inverted — the low printed before my date instead of after it. Almost exactly four years earlier, the prior cycle had done the mirror image. Rhyming again. Not repeating.
Grade: PARTIAL. A time call, graded on time: a major sell-off landed in the vicinity of the date, close to the flagged magnitude — but the low came before the date instead of after it. The window worked; the sequence didn’t.
Call #4: October to December 2025 — time to sell
Published on LinkedIn the same day — September 25, 2024 — as “October to December 2025 – This is the time to sell!“, carrying the same disclosure: written in December 2023, with page 57 of the free Bitcoin book (published March 2024) as the receipt. I wrote: “as we get into October of 2025, you must be prepared to start selling.”
What happened: Bitcoin topped at new all-time highs around $125,000 on October 6, 2025. While much of the industry was explaining why the four-year cycle no longer existed, the top arrived inside the historical post-halving window.
Grade: HIT. A time call, graded on time: the cycle top printed on October 6, inside the called window.
And here’s the entry I could have left out: I didn’t sell. I wrote the call two years ahead of time, watched it land, and rode the drawdown anyway. Being right on paper and disciplined in practice are two different skills, and I only had one of them that month. The call grades HIT; my execution of it doesn’t.
Call #5: February 10, 2026 — the bottom call
Published February 3, 2026, in “You Are NOT Prepared“: February 10, 2026 “is not confirming the cycle is over. It’s marking a bottom — and the cycle is continuing.”
What happened: the February low zone ($62,965 on February 24) held for nearly four months — through the outbreak of an actual war — before being marginally undercut in early June. As an inflection date, February 10 registered. As a launch point, it set up the entry below.
Grade: MISS. A time call, graded on time: the date marked a real low zone and geopolitical turning point. But the bottom as a V didn’t happen.
The miss: $100,000 in four to six weeks
Now the column that makes this a scorecard instead of a highlight reel.
On February 11–12, 2026, with Bitcoin near $70,000, I published “The Scoreboard Is About to Light Up“. In it I wrote that strong confirmation of the bottom would come with “a new high above $100,000 within four to six weeks,” and that “price could reach $120,000 to $150,000 by June.”
It failed. Bitcoin never traded above $82,035 in the sixteen weeks after that call. June printed roughly $62,900 — about half my target. And on March 31, 2026, I published the concession under my own name, in these words: “I was wrong on the timing of the acceleration upward.” No stealth edit, no deleted post, no “well, actually.” Wrong.
Grade: MISS. A price call, graded on price — the level never printed, and the concession is on the record.
The one that doesn’t count — and why it’s here anyway
For completeness of the December 2023 story: back then I also drafted — but never published — a piece titled “Tuesday February 10, 2026 — The TOP Is In!”, arguing that date would confirm the late-2025 high as the cycle top. Read the two entries above and you can see how that aged: the abandoned draft was right. As of this writing, the October 2025 high has stood as the cycle top, and the $100,000 recovery I published instead never came.
And it still doesn’t count. It never ran in advance, so it isn’t a public call, and it doesn’t get a grade — the drawer doesn’t get credit for what the folder never showed you. I disclosed the draft on February 3, 2026, when I publicly walked away from it in favor of the bottom thesis above — so the record shows exactly what happened: I walked away from the right read, and days later published the $100,000 call that missed. If I let unpublished work onto the scorecard the moment it flatters me, nothing else on this page means anything. Only published calls make the scorecard. That’s the standard, and the standard is the point. The entry stays here, ungraded, for exactly that reason.
The oldest entry: gold, 2016
The habit predates Bitcoin — but notice: this entry is the opposite pattern. In my first book and its companion report — © 2016, written with gold around $1,100 an ounce — I put in writing that gold was “going above $5,000 an ounce in approximately 3–7 years.” Gold crossed $5,000 on January 26, 2026 and peaked near $5,600 days later. The receipts live on the Book 1 page — Protect Your Money and Prosper — and the original report ships unedited as The 2016 Audit bonus.
Grade: HIT on the price thesis, MISS on the timing rider. The gold call was a destination call — that’s the axis it claimed, and the destination printed. But I also attached a clock: three to seven years. It took about ten. Right on price, wrong on time — graded on both, because it claimed both.
Now put the gold entry next to the Bitcoin entries, and you get the most useful finding in ten years of doing this work — and it isn’t “my calls hit.” The gold call was a price thesis: right destination, late arrival. The Bitcoin cycle work is a time system: the December 2023 dated windows kept landing while the price targets I attached to them kept missing. (This February’s bottom call is the exception — a time call that missed, and it’s graded that way above.) Two different claims, two different graders. On the cycle work, time has been my edge; price has been my humility. On gold, the humility ran the other way. The only through-line I’ll claim across this whole page is the standard itself: every call published in advance, dated, and graded against what it actually claimed — misses included. Which is why my new book, Accelerate Your Money and Prosper, teaches cycle position instead of price targets: it’s built on the half of my own record that earned it. The miss is in the book too, in full, because a track record with the losses removed is just marketing.
How to read this scorecard
Every entry above carries its publish date, a link to the original article, what actually happened, and a grade — hit, partial, or miss. This post is a snapshot: it is accurate as of its publication date, and future dated calls get graded in follow-up posts after their dates resolve — never by editing this one. The next dated entry is already public before its window: October 2026, pre-registered in Chapter 7 of the new book (the book’s page) and right here. Historically, Bitcoin’s new cycle moves (or, as the book explains, cycle extension moves) have begun in the October–December window of the post-peak year (2014, 2018, 2022) — the years the prior lows printed there. Whether this one does, you’ll be able to grade it — I publish first, the market grades me, and the follow-up gets written either way.
The long-range entries: 2029–2032
While I’m putting timestamps on the record, two more dated windows go on it — pre-registered here exactly like October 2026: published before the window, graded in a follow-up after it, never by editing this post. From my longer-range cycle work: a Bitcoin-versus-gold peak window around Q4 2029, and a stocks-versus-gold low window around 2032. And because a forward call without a failure condition is just a horoscope, here are the numbers that kill mine: BTC/GOLD breaking above 22.5 impulsively confirms the acceleration thesis — that trigger hasn’t fired as of this writing; BTC/GOLD below 8.8 kills it, and I publish the obituary. SPX/GOLD closing above 2.65 kills the stocks-versus-gold thesis — same obituary rule. These are the levels where I declare my own research wrong, not instructions to trade anything. The research context behind both windows — the two clocks, the stated odds against them, and the blind stress test that produced them — lives in the Your Freedom Number report that comes free with Accelerate Your Money and Prosper. If 2029 arrives and this entry embarrasses me, it stays up. That’s what it’s for.
Don’t take my summary for any of this. Click the originals and check the timestamps yourself. And if you only remember one section of this post, make it the miss — a scorecard that only shows hits isn’t a scorecard; it’s an ad. The framework behind every entry here is the book: Accelerate Your Money and Prosper — $4.99 on Kindle. Get the book
This is educational, not investment advice. I’m a CPA, not your CPA, and not your investment advisor. Disclosure: I personally own Bitcoin and gold, as documented throughout my books and reports.