Is the four-year cycle dead? Seven seasoned crypto experts tell you what the market really looks like now

Since the Bitcoin halving in April 2024, the journey from $60,000 to $126,000 has fallen far short of market expectations. This correction has brought a question to the surface: Has the four-year cycle theory that has long dominated the crypto market become invalid?

To answer this question, we invited seven seasoned industry practitioners for an in-depth discussion. They include a fund founder who previously worked within Alibaba’s system, an investor managing over a billion dollars in assets, an on-chain data analyst, and industry observers with mining backgrounds. Their consensus is both surprising and logical.

The True Face of the Four-Year Cycle: From Objective Law to Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

First, we need to clarify: What exactly is the “four-year cycle”?

According to common market understanding, this cycle is driven by Bitcoin’s halving of block rewards every four years—reducing supply, increasing miner costs, and supporting prices in the long term. It sounds like a rigid mathematical rule.

But deeper analysis reveals that this is far from just code logic. A fund founder pointed out that the four-year cycle actually reflects a dual-driven process of political cycles + liquidity cycles. The U.S. election cycle occurs roughly every four years, and the expansion pace of global central banks also follows a similar timeframe. Previously, people focused solely on halving because new Bitcoin supply constituted a large proportion of the total; but now, with spot ETFs flooding into Wall Street, Bitcoin has become part of the macro asset sequence. The real determinants of the cycle are the Fed’s balance sheet expansion rate and global M2 growth.

This signifies a key shift: from “hard constraints” to “soft expectations that self-fulfill.”

Several interviewees noted that while the four-year cycle does have a mathematical basis on the supply side, as the market size expands, this basis is gradually weakened at the margin. An on-chain data analyst explained that in early cycles, halving had a significant impact on supply and demand; but today, the volume of new supply relative to market cap is negligible. Expectations have become the main force driving the cycle, rather than objective scarcity.

Why did this rally fall short of expectations? The true change in market structure

In this cycle, Bitcoin’s price increase was indeed weaker than historical performance. The reason is not the failure of halving but institutional capital changing the rhythm and manner of price formation.

A seasoned investor pointed out that the previous cycle’s all-time high was mainly driven by retail marginal liquidity; this cycle, over $50 billion in ETF funds have continuously flowed in before and after the halving, completely changing the game. Price rises are no longer concentrated in parabolic surges post-halving but are dispersed over a longer period.

From a market size perspective, this is understandable. When Bitcoin reaches a trillion-dollar level, even doubling requires an equivalent amount of new capital inflow. In terms of volatility, the characteristic of traditional financial assets—larger market cap, lower volatility—is now being replicated in crypto.

Multiple interviewees agree that this is not a cycle failure but a natural law of diminishing marginal effects. An industry insider added that although halving does support prices long-term by raising production costs, in a mature industry, this support is no longer sufficient to trigger extreme volatility. Future halvings are more likely to become “secondary catalysts” rather than dominant factors.

Where are we now? The fragmentation of consensus

If the four-year cycle has been broken, then are we in a bull market, bear market, or some uncertain transitional state?

On this question, the respondents’ views diverge most.

Pessimists believe we are in the early stages of a bear market. Their reasoning is based on cost-benefit structures. In the previous cycle, miners’ costs were around $20,000 with a peak price of $69,000, yielding about 70% profit margin; in this cycle, costs have risen to around $70,000, and even at $126,000, profit margins are just over 40%. In an industry nearly 20 years old, declining yields are normal. More importantly, many incremental funds in this cycle have flowed into AI-related assets rather than crypto.

Neutral analysts describe the current state as “observation mode”. Technical signals show a bear market (weekly price below the 50-week moving average), but macro conditions have yet to give a final confirmation. Key indicators include the growth rate of stablecoin supply—only when stablecoins stop growing for more than two months can a bear market be confidently confirmed.

More respondents remain optimistic. Their logic is based on global liquidity conditions. The Fed has just begun a rate-cutting cycle, with policies leaning toward easing, and no tightening signals in the short term. As long as global M2 continues to expand, crypto assets—being the most sensitive liquidity sponge—will find it difficult to enter a deep bear market.

A senior investor pointed out that a true bear market would require macroeconomic recession or liquidity crises. Such conditions have not yet appeared—in fact, there may even be preparations for more liquidity.

These disagreements themselves most authentically reflect the current state: there is no single clear framework, only multiple possibilities coexisting.

If the cycle is dead, will the bull market continue? Where are the new drivers?

Assuming the four-year cycle is indeed loosening, what will drive the crypto market’s future?

A growing consensus is: shifting from emotion-driven bull markets to structurally driven slow bulls.

First, Bitcoin is becoming a true “digital gold”—included in national sovereign asset balances, pension funds, and hedge fund allocations. This means its price logic no longer depends on a single cycle event but aligns with gold as a “long-term asset against fiat devaluation.” Prices will rise in a spiral pattern.

Second, the importance of stablecoins is severely underestimated. Compared to Bitcoin’s niche user base, stablecoins are closer to real economic applications—payment settlement, cross-border capital flows, interface layers for new financial infrastructure. Future growth in crypto markets will not only come from speculative demand but also from gradual integration with real finance and commerce.

Third, the continuous entry of institutions. Whether through spot ETFs or RWA tokenization pathways, as institutional allocations increase, the market will exhibit a “compound interest” structure—volatility will be smoothed, but the trend will not reverse, resembling gold’s “long-term oscillation—sharp rise—long-term oscillation” pattern.

However, this “slow bull” narrative is not universally accepted. Some more pessimistic voices point out that global economic structural issues—rising unemployment, wealth disparity, geopolitical risks—may trigger systemic crises around 2026-2027. Even crypto assets would find it hard to escape unscathed then.

Therefore, this sustained upward trend requires a precondition: continued loose liquidity. Once conditions change, the logical chain will break.

Is the altcoin season still possible?

If the importance of halving diminishes, then the closely linked “altcoin season” is also widely viewed as waning.

In this cycle, altcoins have performed notably weakly. Several investors analyzed the reasons: Bitcoin’s rising dominance causes risk assets to “risk off”; institutions prefer blue-chip crypto assets; at the same time, once-star sectors like DeFi and NFTs lack new narratives; most critically, the total number of altcoins is at a record high, so even with ample macro liquidity, the probability of individual tokens gaining attention is greatly reduced.

Most respondents believe that the altcoin season will not disappear entirely but become more selective. No longer a broad rally, but based on sector narratives and fundamentals. Similar to the “Big Seven” phenomenon in US stocks—few blue-chip altcoins continue to outperform, while small-cap tokens occasionally surge but lack sustainability.

The market structure has already changed: from a “attention economy” driven by retail investors to a “reporting economy” driven by institutions. This means selecting quality altcoins is more important than chasing an altcoin season.

The real positions of seven industry practitioners

The most telling indicator of market expectations is not words but actions. When asked about their actual holdings, an astonishing consensus emerged: most respondents have essentially liquidated their altcoin positions, usually holding only half a position.

A fund founder’s allocation approach is “defensive + long-term”—using gold as a substitute for USD as a cash management tool to hedge fiat risk. Digital assets are mainly concentrated in BTC and ETH, but with caution on ETH, favoring high-certainty assets and exchange stocks.

An on-chain analyst strictly adheres to the principle that “cash should not be less than 50%,” with core holdings in BTC and ETH, and no more than 10% in altcoins. He sold at $3,500 gold, has no plans to reallocate, and is also short on AI concept stocks to hedge bubbles.

Another investor with higher risk appetite is nearly fully invested, but with a highly concentrated portfolio: centered on ETH, incorporating stablecoins, and supplemented with large-cap assets like BTC, BCH, BNB. His bets are not on cycles but on the long-term competitive landscape of public chains, stablecoins, and exchanges.

Most notably, a practitioner with a mining background has essentially liquidated all crypto positions—including BTC sold at $110,000. He expects to re-enter below $70,000, with a cycle forecast of the next two years. His US stock holdings are purely defensive/cyclical, planning to liquidate before next year.

Is now the “bottom-fishing” time?

This is the most practical question.

Pessimists believe the bottom is still far away—the real bottom is “when no one wants to bottom-fish.”

More cautious analysts suggest that the ideal start for dollar-cost averaging or building positions should be below $60,000. The logic is simple: starting to invest after a 50% retracement from all-time highs has been validated in every bull market. It won’t happen in the short term, but after 1-2 months of significant volatility, the market may test $100,000 again next year, just not reaching new highs. Once macro policy red lines are exhausted, a cyclical bear market will set in, requiring waiting for a new round of monetary easing.

More voices lean toward neutral to slightly optimistic—this is not the time for “aggressive bottom-fishing,” but it is a window for gradual accumulation and allocation.

Almost all respondents agree: avoid leverage, refrain from frequent trading, discipline is more important than judgment.

This may be the only certainty remaining amid the dramatic changes in market structure.