VeChain receives a strong long-term technical score of 82 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 82% 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
VeChain’s price is -$0.0262297 (-35.60%) below its 100-day moving average price of $0.073680982 as its price at the moment sits at $0.047451299. Additionally, VET is $0.0082412 (-27932.98%) higher than its 52-week low price of $0.039210103 while -$0.23076480 (-3577.27%) under its 52-week high of $0.278216094. The current trading price in relation to its long-term average along with its 52-week high and low, gives VET a strong long-term technical score of 82. Long-term trading movement of VeChain suggest that investors are neutral on the coin at the moment.
VeChain currently has a total market cap of $3,051,857,658.90 to go along with its average daily volume of $1,736,204,486.36 worth of the currency over the past seven days. VET’s volume is below its seven day average as of the past 24 hours, with 234,687,651.22 exchanged in that period.
Summary
VET’s historical trading over the past year gives it a a strong long-term technical score of 82 as its price movement in that time has given investors reason to be neutral 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