XRP Price To Teleport To $6.9 Once Wave 3 Of 3 Is Completed

bitcoinistPublicado em 2025-10-08Última atualização em 2025-10-08

Resumo

The XRP price is already seeing a major recovery trend, thanks to the market reversal that was triggered by Bitcoin’s...

Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure

The XRP price is already seeing a major recovery trend, thanks to the market reversal that was triggered by Bitcoin’s rise to new all-time highs. Right now, the battle line looks to be drawn around the $3 level, where bears look to be mounting their resistance. Despite this, the XRP price trend remains extremely bullish, especially from the wave theory point of view. As the bearish second wave looks to be nearing completion, the start of the third wave could lead to an explosive rally.

Why Wave 3 Of 3 Is Important

Crypto analyst HovWaves has pointed out that the XRP price could be looking to fill in the Wave 3 of 3 with the next move. The recent post comes as a follow-up to an analysis that was posted last month, showing how the XRP price had been moving, with possible direction points.

Related Reading: Ripple Vs. SWIFT Battle Heats Up With ‘Fax Machine Vs. Internet’ Comment Fanning The Flames

Back in September, the XRP price had been trading mostly sideways as bears kept prices below $3. At that point, HovWaves explained that the price could either break out into Wave 3 of 3 or continue to trade sideways. Eventually, it was the latter as the market remained muted.

However, with the start of October, the tides have quickly changed, and the crypto market is seeing a rapid uptrend. Thus, it is possible that this new wave would bring about the bullish Wave 3 of 3. The decisive level here, though, lies well above $3, and the price would need to completely shatter the resistance straight up to $3.2 for a confirmation to be complete.

XRP Price Will Rip If It Closes Above $3.2

In the latest analysis, HovWaves points out that the XRP price continues to rise upward, and the only downside that the altcoin has seen has been threaded wicks. This is naturally bullish for the cryptocurrency and suggests a continuation to the upside.

Related Reading: XRP ETFs Coming In October? What The New SEC Generic Listing Standard Guidelines Mean
XRP Price
Source: X

The key here is actually getting a High Timeframe (HTF) close above $3.25, and the trend would be in motion. This means that the XRP price needs to notch an almost 10% gain from here first to confirm that the second wave has officially come to an end.

With Wave 3 of 3, the XRP price is looking to at least double its price. The analyst sets a target of $6.9 from here, which would mean an over 100% increase. A rally to this point would also mean a brand-new all-time high for XRP for the first time since 2018. As for the timeline for this, the crypto analyst believes it would happen by the end of the year if the wave is confirmed.

XRP price chart from TradingView.com
Price wavers with bearish pressure | Source: XRPUSDT on TradingView.com
Featured image from Dall.E, chart from TradingView.com
Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.
Scott Matherson

Scott Matherson

Follow

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.

Full Profile

Related Posts

Ripple XRP news

Ripple Is Giving The XRP Ledger An AI Brain — Here’s How

1 hour ago
XRP

XRP Is Already Penetrating SWIFT’s Network Through Multiple Entry Points, Expert Highlights How

17 hours ago
XRP

XRP ETFs Coming In October? What The New SEC Generic Listing Standard Guidelines Mean

1 day ago
Ripple XRP price

Ripple Announces Major Privacy Upgrade For XRP Ledger – What To Know

1 day ago
XRP ETF news

Canary Capital CEO Drops Shocking XRP ETF Prediction: Why It’s A Big Deal

2 days ago
XRP

XRP Institutional Adoption: Ripple CEO Shares The Final Key To Bring It Home

2 days ago

Leituras Relacionadas

Why More AI Agents Does Not Equal Higher Productivity?

Editor's Note: As AI Agents become cheaper and easier to use, a new constraint emerges: the cost isn't in launching more Agents, but in the human attention required to manage, judge, and integrate their outputs. This hidden cost is called the "orchestration tax." The article argues that a developer's cognitive bandwidth is the key bottleneck—a serial, non-parallelizable resource akin to a Global Interpreter Lock (GIL). While many Agents can run concurrently, their results ultimately require human judgment for review, conflict resolution, and final integration. Therefore, more Agents don't automatically mean higher productivity; they can simply create longer queues, lead to cognitive fatigue, and create the illusion of busyness without real output. The core solution is to design workflows around this scarce human attention. Key strategies include: scaling the number of Agents to match review capacity (not UI capacity), categorizing tasks (delegating independent ones, keeping complex judgment-heavy ones serial), batch reviewing results to minimize context-switching costs, automating verifiable checks to reserve human judgment for critical decisions, and protecting focused, uninterrupted thinking time. Ultimately, the critical skill is not launching many Agents, but architecting systems that respect the fundamental limit of human attention. Unpaid "orchestration tax" accumulates as both technical and cognitive debt, undermining system understanding and quality. True productivity comes from thoughtfully managing the single-threaded resource—your focus.

marsbitHá 14m

Why More AI Agents Does Not Equal Higher Productivity?

marsbitHá 14m

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

Three Years Later: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's launch, I made 20 predictions about its future. Now, in mid-2026, I've used AI agents to fact-check each one against the latest data. Overall, most major directional forecasts were correct, with only one outright error (incorrectly stating GPT-4 had 100 trillion parameters). Key successes included predicting that RAG and retrieval architectures would become the standard for handling knowledge and hallucinations, that natural language interfaces (LUI) would create a massive new industry layer beyond the models themselves, and that China would develop viable large language models, significantly closing the performance gap with Western counterparts within about three years. Predictions about the absence of mass unemployment, the rise of a new "robot network" for agent communication, and ChatGPT not possessing consciousness also held true in their core arguments. However, the "devil was in the details." Errors frequently involved specific numbers, timelines, or overlooking distributional effects. I tended to overestimate the speed of adoption (e.g., for agent networks) while underestimating the ultimate scale of capabilities or costs (e.g., AI winning IMO gold without tools, or the extreme capital required for frontier models). Other misjudgments included: underestimating how AI would reinforce, not dissolve, information filter bubbles; incorrectly assuming AI-generated content would easily circumvent copyright (it has instead triggered record-breaking settlements); and misidentifying where value would be captured (it accrued overwhelmingly to the compute layer, like Nvidia, not just the application or model layers). Key lessons from reviewing these predictions are: 1) Directional and mechanistic insights are far more reliable than precise numbers or absolute statements. 2) There's a consistent bias to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude. 3) Errors often lie in missing distributional impacts within a generally correct aggregate trend. 4) Predictions phrased with nuance and caveats aged the best. 5) Some fundamental debates (e.g., on machine consciousness or the ultimate value chain) remain unresolved even after three years. This exercise is less about scoring the past and more about establishing rules for clearer thinking about the next three years of AI.

marsbitHá 6h

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

marsbitHá 6h

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

Looking Back After Three Years: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's debut and before GPT-4's release, I made over twenty predictions about AI's future based on limited information and intuition. Now, in May 2026, I revisited those forecasts using an AI-driven analysis with 41 Opus 4.8 agents to cross-reference them with the latest data. The assessment used symbols: ✅ Correct, 🟢 Mostly Correct, 🟡 Partially Correct, ❌ Incorrect. Overall, the directional judgments held up well, with only one major factual error regarding GPT-4's rumored parameter size (incorrectly cited as 100T). However, nuances and degrees of accuracy revealed more. **What Was Largely Correct:** Predictions about mechanisms and directions proved accurate. The rise of RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) as the standard architecture for combating AI hallucination was confirmed, as was the transformative potential of LUI (Language User Interface) in creating a new industry layer atop GUIs. The emergence of "robot networks" (agent-to-agent communication protocols) and China's rapid catch-up in developing capable large models (closing the performance gap with top models to ~2.7%) were also on point. The analysis affirmed that LLMs lack consciousness and that the Turing Test merely measures perceived intelligence. **What Was Off Target:** Errors often involved specific numbers, over-optimistic timelines, or misjudged distributions. The prediction that value would primarily accrue to the application layer was half-right but missed NVIDIA's dominance as the profitable infrastructure layer. Forecasts about AI circumventing copyright issues and fostering a "global common ground" by averaging human viewpoints were incorrect; instead, major copyright settlements occurred and AI personalization is increasing. Estimates for model training costs ("$5-10 billion cap") were significantly off, underestimating frontier costs and overestimating replication costs. The notion that LLMs could never do complex math without tools was disproven by later models winning IMO gold. **Key Patterns from the Review:** 1. **Direction over precision:** Judgments about mechanisms and trends were more reliable than specific numbers or definitive statements. 2. **Timing bias:** There was a tendency to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude and transformation. 3. **The distribution blind spot:** Aggregate-level correctness often masked uneven impacts (e.g., on young professionals' employment). 4. **The value of qualifiers:** Predictions framed with caution (e.g., "reportedly," "for now," "prototype in 2-3 years") aged better. 5. **Some debates continue:** Issues like the nature of "emergent abilities" or machine consciousness remain unresolved. This three-year review highlights that while seeing the big picture is crucial, humility regarding specifics, timelines, and disparate impacts is essential for future forecasting.

链捕手Há 9h

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

链捕手Há 9h

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

The article issues a stark warning about a potential AI investment bubble. It notes that while the AI boom shares similarities with the TMT bubble of the late 1990s, its scale is vastly larger, currently driving 93% of U.S. GDP growth. Major hyperscale cloud providers like Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Oracle are planning to invest trillions in AI data centers over the coming years. However, calculations based on analyst projections for 2025-2030 reveal a concerning math problem: expected capital expenditure growth far outpaces projected revenue growth. Even under an extremely optimistic scenario of zero costs, the implied return on investment for most of these tech giants (except Amazon) is deeply negative. This suggests that the current trajectory could lead to one of history's largest shareholder value destruction events. The piece outlines two potential escapes: AI generating vastly more revenue than currently anticipated—a near-impossible task—or a significant cutback in the planned investment splurge. The latter scenario could trigger a domino effect, severely impacting the entire tech supply chain (from Nvidia to TSMC), potentially pushing the U.S. economy into recession, and causing a major stock market downturn. The author suggests upcoming high-profile IPOs by companies like OpenAI and Anthropic might represent a transfer of risk from early investors to public market participants. While the peak of the hype cycle might sustain investment through 2026, the fundamental financial dilemma remains unresolved, setting the stage for a potential market correction in 2027 or 2028, similar to the years following Alan Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" warning.

marsbitHá 10h

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

marsbitHá 10h

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

The article "From Token to Machine Labor: AI is Evolving from Tool to 'Worker'" argues that the business model for AI is shifting beyond simply selling computational resources (tokens, GPU hours) or model access. Instead, a new "machine labor market" is emerging, where the core economic transaction is the purchase of economically useful work directly performed by software. The central thesis is that AI pricing will evolve through four stages: 1) raw tokens, 2) standardized LLM capabilities (e.g., text generation), 3) industry-specific labor markets (e.g., legal review, radiology), and finally 4) a programmable results market where tasks like resolving a support ticket are bid on and priced based on outcome. In this future, buyers will care less about *which* model or GPU completes a task and more about whether the work meets specified standards for accuracy, latency, and cost. This transition reframes the impact of AI on human labor. Rather than simple replacement, it suggests a re-coordination where machines handle standardized, verifiable work, freeing humans for roles involving oversight, context management, responsibility, and final judgment. In some cases, this "last 1%" of human input becomes more valuable as it enables the other 99% to be automated. Furthermore, as AI reduces the cost of work, demand may expand, creating larger markets (e.g., 24/7 customer service) rather than just cheaper versions of existing ones. The article concludes that while infrastructure (GPUs, models, tokens) remains crucial upstream, the market is converging on a simpler, tradeable unit: machine labor that can be defined, measured, priced, and procured based on contractible specifications.

marsbitHá 10h

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

marsbitHá 10h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片

Categorias popularesright-arrow

Etiquetas Popularesright-arrow