Tested claim

Does the Pi Cycle Top indicator work?

When the 111-day moving average crosses above twice the 350-day moving average, bitcoin is at a cycle top.

Price, 111-day average and twice the 350-day average$0.03$437k201020182026Price111-day average2 × 350-day averagewhen it fired
Where we are now. Today the 111-day average is $67,355 and twice the 350-day average is $161,561 — the 111-day sits 58% below the line it has to cross. Shaded bands are the 5 occasions the rule fired, the same ones counted in the table below: 2011-08, 2013-04, 2013-12, 2017-12, 2021-04.
No verdict

This rule has fired 5 times. A 40% fall followed within a year on all 5. On comparable days when it did not fire, a 40% fall followed 25.9% of the time.

PER CENT OF OCCASIONS FOLLOWED BY THE PREDICTED OUTCOMEWhen it fired100.0%When it did not25.9%5 occasions — too few for a verdict
Pi Cycle Top, scored against a transition-matched baseline
Times it fired5 separate occasions, not days
What followed100.0% a 40% fall within 365 days of that close
Happened anyway25.9% comparable days when the rule did not fire
Difference+74.1 pts near zero means the signal added nothing

Where the claim comes from

Popularised by Philip Swift in 2019. It is probably the single most-cited top signal in Bitcoin, and its appeal is that it has never produced a false positive.

How we tested it

Trigger: 111DMA > 2 x 350DMA. Scored as a top rule: did a 40% fall from that day's close follow within 365 days?

Only days the rule could have fired are counted. Consecutive triggers within 90 days are one occasion. The baseline excludes each trigger and the 90 days after it, because the aftermath of a signal is not a fair comparison. No verdict is given below 20 occasions.

What the numbers say

This is the row people will quote at us, so it is worth being exact. Five firings, five cycle tops, against a baseline of 25.9%. That is a striking record and it is also five observations. Five is not enough to distinguish skill from luck at any conventional standard, and the honest answer is that we do not know. A rule that fires once a cycle in an asset with four cycles cannot be evaluated, however clean it looks.

What this does not mean

This is not evidence that Pi Cycle fails. It is evidence that the question is currently unanswerable. Anyone quoting the 100% is quoting a sample of five.

What would change the answer

Roughly fifteen more firings, which at one per cycle means several more decades. Or a specification that fires far more often while making the same claim.

If you cannot time it, the question changes

Most of the claims in this registry cannot be shown to beat a coin flip, and several are worse than one. That is not an argument against holding bitcoin. It is an argument that the decision worth spending effort on is how much to hold, not when to buy.

We are building that second tool. Until it is here, the Where Things Stand page gives the valuation state and what has historically followed readings like today's, with the sample size attached.

Recomputed from the daily public snapshot by fetch/scorecard.py and published as scorecard.json. Method on the methods page; every claim in the scorecard.