Market Overview for Venus/Tether (XVSUSDT) – November 13, 2025

• Price declined from 4.42 to 4.42 at close, with a 24-hour range of 4.31–4.53
• Momentum shifted between overbought and oversold levels, with RSI peaking near 70
• Volatility surged mid-session as price tested key levels and retested 4.40
• Bollinger Bands widened during the bullish breakout, then narrowed during consolidation
• Turnover rose significantly during the 4.40–4.50 rally, indicating institutional participation

The Venus/Tether pair (XVSUSDT) opened at 4.42 on November 12 at 12:00 ET and closed at 4.42 on November 13 at 12:00 ET, with a high of 4.53 and a low of 4.31. Price remained in a tight range for most of the session, but a late-night bullish breakout pushed it above 4.45. Total volume was 28,645.13, with a notional turnover of $124,089.49, indicating moderate liquidity and interest.

Structure & Formations

Price action revealed a critical consolidation phase around the 4.40–4.45 range, with several 15-minute candlestick patterns forming. A bullish engulfing pattern appeared at 06:00 ET as the close (4.50) overshot the prior candle’s body. A doji near 09:00 ET suggested indecision, and a bearish harami pattern at 10:00 ET hinted at potential reversal. The 4.45–4.46 level acted as a key resistance, with a retest on the 10:45 ET candle showing bearish rejection.

Moving Averages

The 20-period and 50-period moving averages on the 15-minute chart crossed near 4.41–4.43, suggesting a potential shift in short-term bias. On the daily chart, the 50-period MA was slightly above the 100-period MA, indicating a neutral to mildly bullish trend in the broader context. However, the 200-period MA remained well below the current price, signaling long-term bearish pressure.

MACD & RSI

The MACD line crossed above the signal line just before the 06:00 ET breakout, suggesting a short-term bullish bias. However, RSI spiked into overbought territory (over 70) around 06:30 ET, indicating potential exhaustion. Later, RSI dropped below 40 after 09:00 ET, signaling oversold conditions, which were followed by a failed attempt to rebound. The divergence between MACD and RSI suggests caution, as bullish momentum has not yet translated to sustained price action.

Bollinger Bands

Bollinger Bands expanded significantly during the breakout above 4.45, with the price touching the upper band at 4.46 before retracting. This widening volatility indicated a breakout attempt, but the subsequent narrowing of the bands after 10:00 ET suggested a period of consolidation and reduced volatility. The price settled near the mid-band by the close, suggesting that the breakout was not confirmed and the market is seeking a new equilibrium.

Volume & Turnover

Volume and turnover spiked during the 06:00–08:00 ET window as price rallied from 4.42 to 4.50. This increase coincided with a bullish engulfing candle and the MACD crossover, suggesting accumulation. However, turnover dropped significantly after 09:00 ET despite continued sideways price movement, indicating a lack of follow-through. A divergence between price and turnover could imply a bearish reversal or a potential trap for buyers.

Fibonacci Retracements

Applying Fibonacci retracements to the 15-minute swings from 4.31 to 4.53, the 38.2% level at 4.44 and 61.8% at 4.41 were both tested multiple times during the session. The 50% retracement at 4.42 coincided with the open and close, suggesting a key psychological level. The price failed to hold above the 61.8% level during the 10:00–11:00 ET window, indicating that buyers may be losing control.

Backtest Hypothesis

The backtesting strategy applied over the 2022–2025 period showed a cumulative return of –40% and an annualized return of just 0.79%. Despite some profitable trades capturing 10%+ gains, the strategy was hampered by a high frequency of losses, averaging –9% per losing trade. The 63% maximum drawdown highlights the risks of a simple 10-day holding period following buy signals, particularly in a volatile asset like XVSUSDT. The extremely low Sharpe ratio of ~0.02 underscores the incompatibility between risk and reward in this approach, making it unsuitable for risk-averse or capital-preserving investors.