The four-year cycle theory is undergoing a transformation: have Bitcoin laws ceased to apply in the institutional era?

Eighteen years after the emergence of Bitcoin, the four-year cycle theory has risen to the status of a market axiom in the cryptocurrency industry. Halving, supply contraction, price increases, altcoins – this pattern not only explained historical market movements but also deeply influenced investor decisions and financing strategies. Everything changed after the 2024 halving. Bitcoin rose from $60,000 to a record $126,000 – a growth below historical expectations – while altcoins performed even worse.

Simultaneously, financial institutions, spot ETFs, and new financial tools transformed the market landscape. The question everyone is asking today: Does the traditional four-year cycle theory still serve as the foundation of this market?

To find out, we spoke with seven experienced industry players: fund managers, on-chain data analysts, institutional investors, and mining experts. Their assessments paint a picture of a market in deep structural shift.

Anatomy of the Four-Year Cycle: More Than Halving

Understanding the origins of the four-year cycle is the starting point for the entire discussion. For years, the consensus was simple: Bitcoin block reward halving ( occurring every four years ) reduces new supply, alters miner behavior, and supports long-term price.

However, this explanation is becoming increasingly insufficient. Some analysts point to deeper connections – four years also align with the US election cycle and the pace of liquidity release by global central banks. Before the approval of spot ETFs, everyone looked solely at halving as the variable. Today, as Bitcoin has become a macroeconomic asset, Fed balance sheet expansion and global M2 are equally important factors.

The perspective is revolutionizing: the four-year cycle is essentially a liquidity cycle, not just a supply-demand mathematical rule. In the current period (2024-2028), only about 600,000 BTC will be added – with 19 million already issued, this is a marginal increase, generating new selling pressure below $60 billion, which Wall Street can easily absorb.

From Economic Law to Self-Fulfilling Narrative

Is four years an objective law or a market myth that everyone follows because they believe in it?

The answer lies somewhere in between. Previously, halving had a real impact on supply and demand dynamics – when miners mined significant amounts of Bitcoin, its effect on price was tangible. But this mechanism is diminishing in returns. Each subsequent halving reduces its relative impact, and each cycle yields a smaller percentage increase.

Jason, co-founder of NDV Fund, observes: as market capitalization grows, the influence of supply-side changes diminishes. The current cycle is thus more a self-reinforcing consequence of liquidity than a hard rule.

Pointing to the features of a “self-fulfilling prophecy” is justified. The market participant structure has changed – institutions and retail investors occupy different positions than a decade ago. The importance of macro policy, regulation, liquidity conditions, and halving is being redefined at every stage. The four-year cycle theory today is one of many factors, not an “iron law.”

The new consensus is: the cycle is shifting from a strong supply-demand mechanism to an effect driven by narrative, behaviors, and macroeconomic variables. It has become a “soft expectation” rather than a “hard constraint.”

Smaller Growth in This Cycle: Nature or Institutions?

All guests agree on one point: smaller growth is a natural effect of diminishing marginal returns, not a sudden loss of cycle power.

As the market grows exponentially, each next “multiplier” requires increasingly larger capital inflows. Bitcoin has already reached a trillion-dollar market cap – doubling it requires truly enormous funds. That’s mathematics, not a betrayal of the theory.

But a deeper change is structural. Previously, Bitcoin peaks were driven by retail crowds in a parabolic explosion. This time, over $50 billion from ETFs was absorbed before actual supply pressure emerged. Growth has spread over a longer horizon instead of concentrating in a single shock.

As Bitcoin becomes a mainstream asset, volatility naturally decreases. At the current market scale, even doubling the price requires fundamentally different capital flows than during the retail speculation era.

Has halving ceased to be relevant? No – but its role has shifted. Halving will be a secondary catalyst, while institutional capital flows, real resource demand (RWA), and macroeconomic environment will take the primary role.

However, some remain pessimistic. The cost of Bitcoin mining after halving has risen to about $70,000 – even at a peak of $126,000, miners’ margin is just over 40%. In the previous cycle, this margin hovered around 70%. This signals diminishing returns in an industry that has been mature for nearly two decades. Halving raises production costs and ultimately limits the price, but no longer creates dramatic increases.

Where Are We Now? Bear Market or Consolidation in a Bull?

This question reveals the biggest disagreements among the interviewees.

Pessimists argue that the market has already entered a bear phase – most participants simply won’t admit it. Cost structure suggests cyclic returns are shrinking. New capital, instead of flowing into cryptocurrencies, is choosing AI on traditional exchanges.

From a technical perspective, there is nuance. The market may not have fully entered a cyclical bear, but it has already broken the MA50 on weekly charts – a technical weakening signal. However, a real bear requires confirmation through macroeconomic recession. The current stage is a “suspension”: technical structure has weakened, but macro has not given a final verdict. When stablecoins stop growing for over two months, the bear will be confirmed.

Most experts lean toward a more moderate interpretation: the four-year cycle theory no longer works, we are in a correction within (late) bull, and the future is more likely a sideways trend or slow bull.

Their logic: the US has no choice but to continue easing monetary policy to delay debt growth pressure. The rate cut cycle is just beginning, the “liquidity tap” remains open. As long as global M2 grows, cryptocurrencies – as the most liquidity-sensitive instrument – have not ended their upward trend. The real bear signal would be tightening by central banks or a deep recession.

Institutions are restructuring the financial system on blockchain, supply structure is stabilizing, volatility is decreasing. The new Fed chair and friendly policies toward cryptocurrencies are conditions that historically supported upward trends. Current fluctuations are a broad consolidation before medium- and long-term growth.

The essential conclusion is that the disagreements themselves reflect the reality of this era.

From Emotional Bull to Structural: The New Growth Engine

If the four-year cycle theory weakens and the crypto market no longer oscillates dramatically between bull and bear but remains in a long-term sideways trend with limited bears – what drives it?

Systematic decline in trust in fiat currencies and normalization of institutional allocation.

Bitcoin, seen as “digital gold,” is appearing on the balance sheets of states, pension funds, and hedging funds. Its growth logic no longer depends on cyclical events but resembles gold’s long-term appreciation – a hedge against currency depreciation. Prices will rise in a slow spiral, but gradually.

Stablecoins play an equally important role. They have greater utility than Bitcoin and are closer to the real economy. From payments and settlements to cross-border capital flows – stablecoins are becoming the “interface” of new financial infrastructure. The future growth of the crypto market will thus gradually integrate into real business activity, not just speculation.

The key factor for slow bull markets will be ongoing institutional adoption – whether through spot ETFs or tokenization of real assets. As long as institutions allocate capital, the market has a “compound return structure” – volatility diminishes, and the trend does not reverse.

The outlook is simple: on the right side of the BTCUSD pair sits USD. As long as global liquidity remains moderate, the dollar stays weak, and asset prices do not experience deep declines but only slow growth within cyclical tech-bear phases. The traditional bull-bear structure has transformed into something akin to gold: “long-term consolidation – growth – long-term consolidation.”

However, pessimists warn: the structural problems of the global economy remain unresolved – degenerating labor markets, youth dropping out of employment, extreme wealth concentration, rising geopolitical risks. The probability of a serious crisis in 2026-2027 is not low. If macro systemic risk appears, cryptocurrencies will suffer too.

Slow bull markets are thus a conditional assessment, dependent on continued moderate liquidity.

Altcoin Season: Extinct Myth or Mutation?

Altcoin season was an integral part of the four-year cycle. This time, its absence has become the main discourse.

There are several reasons. Bitcoin’s rising dominance created a “safe haven” among risky assets – institutions prefer blue chips. Maturing regulatory frameworks favor altcoins with real utility and compliance. And most importantly – no breakthrough application or narrative like DeFi or NFTs appeared in this cycle as in the previous.

The consensus points to the possibility of a new altcoin season, but more selective – focused on tokens with real use cases and revenue generation.

However, the traditional altcoin season is unlikely to return. “Traditional” meant a reasonable number of projects; today, the number of altcoins hits record highs. Even if macro liquidity flows in, it is spread over too many projects for broad growth. If an altcoin season occurs, it will be local – in selected sectors, not in individual tokens.

Future altcoins will resemble M7 stocks on Wall Street: blue chips will outperform the market long-term, small projects may sometimes explode, but their durability will be weak.

The market structure has fundamentally changed. Where once attention span driven by retail was king, now the economy of financial statements driven by institutions rules.

Portfolios in an Era of Uncertainty

Actual portfolio allocations are surprising: most interviewees have practically withdrawn from altcoins and are about half-in, mostly in Bitcoin and Ethereum.

Strategies range from defensive to accumulation. Bitcoin and Ethereum are preferred, with Ethereum raising more concerns. Some choose gold over dollars as a cash management and hedging tool.

Less risky investors hold about 50% cash, with core holdings in BTC-ETH and less than 10% in altcoins. More aggressive investors are almost fully engaged but focused on Ethereum, stablecoins, and large assets – a long-term bet on the structure of public chains, not a cycle play.

Pessimists are not playing at all – they have almost completely exited cryptocurrencies, selling Bitcoin around $110,000, waiting for a chance to buy back below $70,000.

Buying Dips: When and How?

This pragmatic question reveals the ultimate differences.

Pessimists believe the bottom is still far away – the real bottom will appear when “nobody dares to buy anymore.” For cautious investors, the best moment for DCA is below $60,000 – after a 50% drop from the peak, a gradual buying strategy has proven effective in every bull run. In the short term, this level may not be reached, but after 1-2 months of consolidation, a test above $100,000 is possible, though a new high is unlikely.

Most experts remain moderately optimistic: now is not the time for “aggressive dip buying,” but an open period for gradual position building and prudent allocation.

Everyone agrees: without leverage, without frequent trading, discipline outweighs forecasts.