VeChain receives an average long-term technical score of 44 from InvestorsObserver‘s research based on historical trading patterns. The proprietary scoring system weighs price movement from recent months to a year, analyzes the coin’s support and resistance levels, and where it is relative to long-term averages to determine whether it’s a strong buy-and-hold investment opportunity.
VET currently holds a superior long-term technical analysis score than 44% of cryptos in circulation. This ranking metric is most useful to buy-and-hold type investors looking for strong steady growth when allocating their assets. coins with a high long and short-term technical score can help indicate assets that have bottomed out, providing investors a chance to ‘buy the dip’.
Trading Analysis
The current trading price of $0.060000000 for VET is -$0.0400000 (-38.78%) below the coins 100-day moving average of $0.090000000. VET meanwhile is $0.0200000 (-30632.60%) above its 52-week low of $0.040000000 and -$0.22000000 (-3573.80%) under its 52-week high price of $0.280000000. VeChain’s current price relative to the coins long-term average and 52-week high and low, gives the crypto an average long-term technical score of 44. The price movement and range of VET suggest that investors are bearish on the coin at this time.
VeChain has a market capitalization of $3,673,389,345.37 and a relatively high average daily volume with $1,427,547,727.90 worth of the currency traded over the typical 24 hour period. Over the last 24 hours, VET’s volume is below its seven day average with 212,510,357.05 exchanged.
Summary
Technical analysis of VeChain over the past year results in the crypto receiving a an average long-term technical score of 44 as its price movement in that time has given traders reason to be bearish on the coin in the long-term.
Click Here to get the full Report on VeChain (VET).
Stay In The Know
Subscribe to our daily morning update newsletter and never miss out on the need-to-know market news, movements, and more.
This news is republished from another source. You can check the original article here