A lot of people treat the 200-week moving average as some kind of powerful predictive indicator. In reality, it has no intrinsic predictive power on its own.

What it really does is reveal an underlying structure that already exists.
Bitcoin follows a long-term power-law growth. If you average Bitcoin’s price over a window of about four years (~208 weeks), you are effectively smoothing out the short-term oscillations around that structural trend. The deviations from the power law get damped, and the long-term pattern becomes visually cleaner. That’s why the 200-week MA “works” — not because the average is magic, but because Bitcoin itself has a strong underlying scaling law.
Averages don’t create structure. They only expose it if it’s already there.
If Bitcoin did not follow a stable long-term scaling relationship, the 200-week average would not look particularly meaningful, and it would not appear to act as a “support” level. The apparent strength of the 200-week MA is therefore a reflection of the robustness of the underlying power-law behavior, not a property of the moving average itself.
In other words: moving averages are descriptive, not causal.
They can reveal existing regularities or reveal that none exist — but they don’t generate predictability by themselves.