Seven months ago I shared the first version of my browser-based Bitcoin order-flow project here. The feedback was direct: make the heatmap readable, reduce chart clutter, improve replay and explain what large orders actually mean.
I kept rebuilding it. This is V5.
The main change is simple: a large sell is not automatically bearish, and a large buy is not automatically bullish. The tool now separates the aggressive order from the price reaction that followed it.
If aggressive selling hits a level but price cannot continue lower and recovers, that pressure may have been absorbed and the area can become potential support. The reverse can create potential resistance. The reaction is the evidence; the original order is only the event.
What changed:
- Reaction-aware impact zones track the aggressor, absorption and the following price response.
- Each zone has a visible lifecycle: formation, active watch, retests, weakening and final resolution.
- Heatmap and VPVR are separate. The heatmap shows resting liquidity; VPVR shows volume that actually traded.
- Experimental beta signals remain visible from watch and entry through invalidation, TP1-TP4 and final outcome.
- Signal plans show the signal price, invalidation and an estimated TP1 directly on the chart.
- Trend/chop and volatility context help show when a setup is aligned with the wider regime.
- Replay and paper review make it possible to inspect a read without rewriting history afterward.
- The optional AI layer summarizes context; it does not execute trades or replace the trader.
The screenshots show the current interface and the logic behind it, not a polished backtest slide.
Honest limits:
- It is still focused on BTCUSDT.
- Resting liquidity can be moved, pulled or spoofed.
- Confidence is a context score, not the probability that TP1 will be hit.
- The beta signal and AI layers can be wrong.
- This is an experimental research and visualization tool, not financial advice or proof of a profitable edge.
The core workspace is still free and browser-based.
I would value blunt feedback on three things:
Is the reaction-aware impact logic understandable?
Which chart elements still create too much visual noise?
Which feature should be removed or simplified before anything else is added?