AAVE has come under strong selling pressure in recent days, with price declining sharply into areas that have historically been well recognized by the market. Periods like this often mark points where sentiment can shift, determining whether the move represents a deeper correction or the start of another phase of decline. The current price structure presents several technically relevant levels worth monitoring.

AAVE technical analysis

AAVEUSD - 1 Week Time Frame

AAVE recorded a decline of more than 10% within a week, pushing price into a strong support zone where significant upward reactions have occurred in the past. This area, located in the $76–$107 range, has historically represented a zone of concentrated buying interest. For a potential bottoming process to develop, price would need to stabilize above this level and demonstrate sustained support.

If this zone fails to hold and price continues lower, attention could shift to two additional support areas located relatively close to each other. The first lies in the $62–$66 range, followed by another between $53–$57. Both zones previously acted as strong bottoms, from which meaningful upside movements developed. As a result, increased buying activity and price reaction could emerge within these ranges.

A less probable scenario would involve a decline toward the $28–$39 zone. This support lies below prior bear-market lows, and reaching it would likely require a significant bearish catalyst, potentially driven by negative developments or an event that could materially weaken market sentiment and force broader position unwinding.

AAVE price target

If price manages to find stability at nearby support, the first upside level to monitor could be the resistance at $168. At this level, a weekly close above resistance would be viewed as an indication of strengthening demand and could open the path toward higher levels.

If sustained acceptance above $168 develops, attention could shift to the next resistance at $188. A similar condition applies here, where a weekly close above the level, followed by constructive price behavior, would indicate improving structural strength rather than a temporary reaction.

A comparable framework applies to the higher targets at $240 and $285. At each level, the key factor would be whether price can maintain acceptance above resistance on a weekly basis. Under such conditions, continuation toward higher zones could remain possible.

However, if rejection occurs and price closes below resistance, corrective movement could follow. In that scenario, the primary consideration would be whether the correction remains controlled and preserves the broader market structure rather than signaling renewed weakness.