We’re told that markets are driven by supply and demand, central bank policy, and human emotion. But what if the truth is far more structured?
What if a hidden architecture that governs financial markets, a fractal, resonant system embedded within the market itself could be revealed?
Would that be impactful?
I believe I may have found it quite by accident. But I need someone to look at it to confirm I have not gone bonkers.
So let’s hear it.
“I’ve been studying market movements through a different lens, not based on psychology or randomness, but through a consistent structural framework that seems to repeat across all timeframes and instruments. It’s not based on traditional indicators, but on what I’d describe as a kind of ‘design logic.’ I’m testing whether price behaves like it’s operating within an unseen grid.” It does. And it is designed in a repeating logarithmic pattern. Within each pattern there are resonant zones. I have tested this over the last 5 years and it holds up under scrutiny.
I posted this on the weekend before Monday open on NQ futures.
The Recursive Engine of Market Structure
In the pursuit of understanding markets, many have leaned on tools that appear mathematically sound. Markov chains, machine learning models, and probability-based systems all use approaches that seem logical on the surface, collapse when tested against the true structure underpinning market behaviour. They fail not because of poor implementation, but because they are trying to solve the wrong kind of problem.
What these models assume is that market movement can be captured as a set of transitions from one state to another, with those transitions governed by historical frequency or probability. A Markov chain, for example, posits that the next state of a system depends only on the current one, not the path taken to get there, and not the deeper structural position of that state within a larger framework. In a world where price movement is assumed to be random or sentiment-driven, such tools seem reasonable. But what if that assumption is wrong?
My theory is grounded in a very different premise: that market movement is not random at all, but structured, intentionally, and recursively. At the heart of this structure lies a fractal and logarithmic scaffold, where each level of market movement, primary, secondary, and ternary, is governed by the same internal logic. That logic is a 12-point cycle, which repeats not just across timeframes, but within every fractal layer of the system. Each level begins its own 12-point recursive cycle based on its position within the Primary level above and below it. This is not merely a visual fractal, but a functional fractal, a nested system of structure that modulates itself at every level.
To understand this, imagine a Shepard tone, an auditory illusion of a tone that seems to endlessly rise in pitch, never actually reaching a higher or lower note. It’s created by layering multiple tones separated by layers that continuously fade in and out, producing the sensation of infinite ascent. This illusion captures the essence of recursive design, a system that appears to move forward or change endlessly, yet fundamentally cycles within a pyramid of fixed structures. Similarly, market movement can appear continuous and unpredictable, but beneath that surface lies a repeating, recursive framework that governs every shift.
A rise in price may look like an “Up” state to a statistical model, but without knowing where that movement sits within the larger structure, what level, what polarity, what point in the 12-step sequence, it has no actual meaning.
This is why statistical models fail. They treat market behaviour as memoryless and flat, while in reality, the market is recursive and context-aware. Each layer of price movement inherits the logic of its parent layer, yet begins its own variation of the same underlying theme. This nesting of logic within logic creates a system that no traditional computer model, no matter how advanced, can decode unless it understands the source code of the structure itself.
And that source is design. Not randomness, not noise, but intentional structure that follows elegant mathematical laws. What appears chaotic at first glance is, in fact, composed. Each level of movement is modulated by its position in the hierarchy, and each modulation gives rise to new structure. This is the essence of the recursive engine that drives market behaviour.
To model such a system requires more than computation. It requires alignment with the structure itself. One must begin not by asking what happened last, but by asking: Where are we in the structure? What level are we in? Which point of the 12? Which polarity phase? Which resonance zone? These questions are not just philosophical, they are functional. They provide the key to seeing what statistical models cannot: that the market is not reacting, it is playing out a score.
When I arrived at this stage in writing my book, I had reached a critical conclusion: no model based on historical price alone will ever decode the market. Because the market is not a statistical machine. It is a recursive instrument. And until one tunes in to its layered, logarithmic, fractal design, all efforts to forecast it will amount to guessing at shadows on a wall.
My book, “By Design” shows how this recursive structure can be mapped, measured, and used, not to predict with probabilities, but to align with design. Because when the market moves, it is not reacting. It is resonating.
I can’t help but notice the similarity of your Market Resonance schematic and ICT’s logo
ICT’s logo is obviously proportioned based on Fibonacci ratios. What is the basis for your schematic or is it just a fractal 12 point cycle?
It’s an interesting observation and I’m glad you noticed the structural design.
ICT’s logo may be proportioned around Fibonacci anchors, which are typically derived from high/low reference points. My schematic, on the other hand, is not based on Fibonacci at all.
The visual resemblance likely stems from our shared use of arc diagrams, which were originally formalized by Martin Wattenberg in his study of music phrasing, that’s also where I drew inspiration. Where ICT may use Fibonacci anchors to define levels, my model relies on a recursive structure centered around the fixed points of 0 and 12. These aren’t highs or lows; they represent structural boundary states in a 12-point cycle that repeats across different scales.
In short, the foundation of Market Resonance Theory isn’t price-relative, but structure-relative, independent of specific chart candles or traditional indicators. The repeating framework doesn’t flex to fit the market, the market moves within it.
Cool and thanks for answering. I’m not looking to add more lines to my charts or tamper with my system, I was just curious if there was a connection somehow.
No worries. I have
Incidentally, it is my understanding that ICT Concepts work extremely well within this framework.
Plot those levels on your own chart then explore the different timeframes.
Then use those exact same levels on DXY and see what you get
Notice how each block expands as it goes from one primary to the next. These are the secondary levels. Between these are also Ternary levels (smaller timeframes)
So how do you “compute” (?) and then draw your levels?
If the markets works within, someone has to know that, right?
