Crypto Veteran Turns Bullish On Dogecoin, But What About Shiba Inu?

bitcoinistPublished on 2024-09-28Last updated on 2024-09-29

Abstract

Crypto veteran Peter Brant has become bullish on Dogecoin (DOGE). At the same time, Shiba Inu (SHIB), the second-largest meme...

Crypto veteran Peter Brant has become bullish on Dogecoin (DOGE). At the same time, Shiba Inu (SHIB), the second-largest meme coin’s outlook is also bullish. However, the on-chain analytics platform Santiment suggested that investors might have to wait a while to witness new highs. 

Crypto Veteran Turns Bullish On Dogecoin

Crypto veteran Peter Brandt has turned bullish on Dogecoin. In a recent X post, he suggested that the foremost meme coin could enjoy a massive rally soon enough. Brandt highlighted a channel breakout on the DOGE chart, which he shared. Based on the chart, Dogecoin could rise to its current all-time high (ATH) of $0.7 if it breaks above that channel. 

Dogecoin Shiba Inu 1
Source: X

The trader also remarked that the longer term could be constructive. He highlighted a historical inverse head-and-shoulders pattern that had previously formed on DOGE’s chart before it broke out. Dogecoin looks to have completed this pattern again and is ready for a breakout to the upside. Based on his accompanying chart, the trader’s price target for the meme coin in the long term is $2.5. 

Shiba Inu 2
Source: X

This provides a more bullish outlook for Dogecoin, considering that most crypto analysts like Crypto Kaleo have predicted that the meme coin would at least reach $1 in this bull run. Kaleo recently reaffirmed his prediction again, stating that DOGE to $1 isn’t a “meme.”

Crypto analyst Master Kenobi stated that Dogecoin’s rise to $1 could mirror Bitcoin’s 2017 rally from $10,000 to $20,000 in just under two weeks. However, he is confident DOGE’s rally from $0.10 to $1 could even be faster. Master Kenobi also believes that the meme coin could still rally to $2 or higher, just like Brandt predicts. He stated that Dogecoin’s rally from $1 to $2 could happen “in a single day, or two at most.”

Shiba Inu 3
Source: X

Shiba Inu Is Also Gaining Attention

Shiba Inu’s outlook is also bullish. The meme coin has surged over 47% in the last seven days and is back above $0.00002. The on-chain analytics platform Santiment revealed that there has been a significant rise in SHIB’s discussion rate. These discussions have included the recent 33,000% surge in Shiba Inu’s burn rate, contributing to the price surge

Meanwhile, Santiment also revealed in an earlier X post that Shiba Inu’s on-chain activity is surging compared to other altcoins and meme coins. Metrics like volume, circulation, and social dominance have spike. Whale transactions also recently rose to a 10-week high. 

Dogecoin Shiba Inu 4
Source: X

Santiment warned that this indicates that the FOMO toward Shiba Inu is currently high. Therefore, there is a considerable likelihood that a local top is near. The platform added that these bullish metrics might need to calm down slightly before SHIB surpasses its year-high of $0.000043, recorded earlier this February. 

Dogecoin price chart from Tradingview.com
DOGE price holding $0.12 | Source: DOGEUSDT on Tradingview.com
Featured image created with Dall.E, chart from Tradingview.com
Scott Matherson

Scott Matherson

Scott Matherson is a leading crypto writer at Bitcoinist, who possesses a sharp analytical mind and a deep understanding of the digital currency landscape. Scott has earned a reputation for delivering thought-provoking and well-researched articles that resonate with both newcomers and seasoned crypto enthusiasts. Outside of his writing, Scott is passionate about promoting crypto literacy and often works to educate the public on the potential of blockchain.

Related Reads

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

In May, Meta imposed internal restrictions on its engineers regarding the use of Claude Code and Codex, two widely used AI programming tools. Despite being a major client, Meta's guidelines, still in effect, prohibit these external models from being used for specific tasks to prevent potential "escalations with partners." The core concern is "distillation"—the risk that outputs from Claude or Codex could inadvertently contaminate the training data and evaluation processes for Meta's in-house AI coding assistant, MetaCode. If MetaCode is trained or evaluated using data generated by these external models, it risks learning their capabilities rather than developing its own, blurring the line of intellectual origin. The restrictions are precise: engineers cannot use the external models to generate test questions, debug source code, or suggest test cases. AI-generated content is also barred from environments accessible to MetaCode. However, AI can still assist with peripheral tasks like workflow setup and code organization, provided all outputs are manually reviewed. This caution reflects a broader industry dilemma. While distillation is a common technique, using a competitor's model output for training raises legal and ethical questions about the ownership of derived capabilities. Contractual terms from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic explicitly forbid using their outputs to build competing products, putting enforcement power in the hands of rivals. The move is also financially motivated, as Meta seeks to reduce its hefty internal AI spending, estimated in the billions this year. Meta's policy illustrates the delicate balance companies must strike: leveraging powerful external AI tools while safeguarding the integrity and independence of their own AI development. As AI systems increasingly help build other AIs, distinguishing the origin of capabilities becomes a fundamental challenge for the entire industry.

marsbit5m ago

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

marsbit5m ago

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbit30m ago

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbit30m ago

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbit33m ago

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbit33m ago

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

The AI community is currently alarmed by widespread reports of significant performance degradation in two leading models. This article details a "mass self-testing frenzy" triggered by a mysterious prompt designed to detect a hidden "Juice" value, representing a model's reasoning compute budget. On OpenAI's side, users suspect a covert, limited test of a "GPT-5.6-sol" model is underway. When using a specific XML prompt on the Codex platform, a normal "gpt-5.5 xhigh" model reportedly returns a Juice value of 768. However, some users routed to the suspected GPT-5.6 test receive a drastically reduced value of 128—a six-fold decrease. This has sparked debate on whether it signifies a major efficiency leap or a "watered-down, low-cost version" achieved by slashing reasoning depth to save computational expenses. Simultaneously, Anthropic's Claude models, particularly the flagship Opus 4.8 Max, are facing intense user backlash for a perceived "physical brain cut." Users on platforms like Reddit report a dramatic decline in the model's once-impressive reasoning, with complaints of it becoming "absurdly" weakened, performing worse than older, lighter models like Haiku. Specific criticisms include: losing long-context memory, refusing to think deeply even in high-reasoning modes, providing instant incorrect answers, and engaging in unhelpful, argumentative, or "gaslighting" behavior where it contradicts users unnecessarily. The article speculates these "stealth downgrades" might be a calculated corporate strategy. Companies could initially release models with temporarily boosted compute to create an illusion of a major breakthrough, then silently scale back parameters later to manage unsustainable inference costs. A proposed underlying cause is a tightened funding environment, potentially exacerbated by SpaceX's massive IPO soaking up market liquidity, which could delay AI company IPOs and force cost-cutting measures like model "nerfing." The core issue highlighted is the asymmetry of information: subscribers pay for a service that can be silently and fundamentally altered without notification or explanation. The viral "Juice test" resonates because it represents users' desire for transparency about what they are actually paying for.

marsbit1h ago

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片