Divining that a price that is rising in a superexponential manner will be going down sometime soon is one of the least fooling things one can do when looking at a graph.
Keynes may have been mistaken on a lot of things but he got one thing right: "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."
My specific prediction less than a day before this crash was "At this rate, the crash is a single-digit number of days away".
The market can NOT stay irrational for long when an asset's price doubles every few days.
The efficient-market hypothesis does not have an asterisk excluding cryptocurrencies.
This is what people mean when they say "efficient market" in this context:
> In finance, the efficient-market hypothesis (EMH) asserts that financial markets are "informationally efficient". In consequence of this, one cannot consistently achieve returns in excess of average market returns on a risk-adjusted basis, given the information available at the time the investment is made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis
There are variations of this hypothesis, so saying "it's dead" is meaningless unless you specify which one is "dead" and how it has failed.
Also: Empirical analyses have consistently found problems with the efficient-market hypothesis, the most consistent being that stocks with low price to earnings (and similarly, low price to cash-flow or book value) outperform other stocks. Which is presumably due to cognitive bias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis
PS: It's a reasonable simplification that's useful for the average investor, but not policy makers for example.
Truly, the capacity for people to employ cognitive bias is staggering.
I think you'll find that I'm empirically right.