Has the four-year cycle of Bitcoin really become invalid? The new logic under market structure transformation

Once, the four-year cycle was like the “rule code” of the Bitcoin market—halving → supply reduction → price increase → altcoin season, a cycle as precise as a clock. But after the April 2024 halving, Bitcoin’s rise from $60,000 to $126,000 was far less than in previous years, and altcoins remained silent.

A recurring question from the market surfaced: Is the four-year cycle theory truly outdated?

We interviewed seven seasoned industry practitioners, and their consensus is: the cycle hasn’t disappeared but is undergoing profound transformation.

Diminishing Halving Effect, but Not Vanishing

Regarding the relatively mild rally this time, interviewees almost unanimously agreed: This is a natural diminishing marginal effect, not a sudden failure of the cycle.

As the market size continues to expand, each doubling of returns requires exponentially increasing capital inflows. During the 2020-2021 cycle, Bitcoin mining costs were about $20,000, peaking at $69,000, with miner profits reaching up to 70%. In this cycle, after halving, mining costs approached $70,000, and despite the price touching $126,000, miner profits are only slightly above 40%.

This reflects an age-old economic law: any growth market inevitably experiences a multiple decline.

Deeper changes stem from the market structure itself. Over $50 billion in ETF funds flowed in before and after the halving, with institutional investors absorbing supply shocks even before price volatility. As a result, the rally is no longer concentrated immediately after halving but stretched over a longer timeline for dispersed release.

Meanwhile, as Bitcoin gradually evolves into a mainstream asset class, volatility naturally declines—an inevitable cost of increasing market capitalization, similar to the gold market.

From Hard Constraints to Soft Expectations

The once solid mathematical foundation of the four-year cycle—coded halving rules, limited supply increments, predictable miner behavior—has begun to loosen.

A key shift is: The cycle itself has evolved from an economic fact into a market consensus, and consensus tends to self-fulfill.

As the composition of participants changes—from retail dominance to institutional dominance, from speculation-driven to allocation-driven—the “play” of the cycle is also changing. The influence of policy liquidity, macro interest rate cycles, and geopolitical risks is rising.

The U.S. presidential election cycle and the rhythm of global central bank liquidity injections are no longer coincidences but have become dominant factors. Within this framework, halving has downgraded from an “absolute trigger” to an “auxiliary catalyst.”

Is it a mid-cycle correction in a bull market, or has a bear market already arrived?

This is the question that reveals the most divergence among respondents.

Pessimists believe: Based on miner cost-to-revenue ratios, we are already in the early stage of a typical bear market. Global risk capital is not flowing into crypto assets but continues to pour into AI and other sectors. This indicates a shift in market preference away from risk assets.

Neutral-leaning optimists believe: Global M2 is still growing, and stablecoin supply continues to rise, signaling ample liquidity. A true bear market will only occur when central banks start tightening significantly and the economy slips into recession. Although the technicals are weak (weekly price falling below the 50-day moving average), macro fundamentals have yet to give a definitive verdict.

Persistently optimistic view: The continuous allocation of institutional funds, RWA tokenization, and the trend of stablecoins becoming the new financial infrastructure support a “slow bull” future. Growth may not be as explosive as in previous years, but it will be more sustainable.

Is Altcoin Season a thing of the past?

Another hallmark of the traditional four-year cycle—the “altcoin season”—is noticeably absent this round.

There are three reasons: First, Bitcoin’s relative strength has increased, creating a “safe haven” effect for risk assets, with institutions favoring blue-chip assets. Second, regulatory frameworks are gradually improving, with tokens having clear use cases and compliance pathways gaining popularity. Third, this cycle lacks the killer applications and clear narratives like DeFi or NFTs from the last cycle.

Future altcoin waves may emerge, but they will be highly selective—only projects with genuine revenue models and use cases will garner sustained attention.

Looking at the “Big Seven” in U.S. stocks, the crypto market’s altcoins will likely bifurcate: blue-chip altcoins will outperform the market long-term, while small-cap coins may experience cyclical bursts but struggle to sustain. This is not “altcoins are dead,” but rather “a comprehensive altcoin bull market is no longer happening.”

Where does the new support come from?

If the four-year cycle theory is indeed waning, what then sustains Bitcoin’s long-term upward trend?

First, systemic decline of fiat currency confidence. When global debt issues remain unresolved, central banks will continue to flood the markets, increasing Bitcoin’s appeal as “digital gold” year by year. National balance sheets, retirement funds, and hedge fund allocations are normalizing into this trend.

Second, infrastructure of stablecoins. Stablecoins have a broader user base and closer ties to the real economy. From payment settlements to cross-border capital flows, stablecoins are becoming the “layer” of the new financial system. This means crypto market growth is no longer solely driven by speculation but integrated into actual financial activities.

Third, ongoing institutional allocations. Whether through spot ETFs or RWA tokenization, as long as institutional investment behavior persists, the market will have a “compound interest” structure—volatility is smoothed out, but the trend remains.

Fourth, democratization of mining via smartphones. With the proliferation of lightweight mining apps, Bitcoin is no longer just a “rich man’s game.” More ordinary users are participating through mobile devices, expanding the market base. Although app mining yields are limited, it significantly lowers entry barriers, continuously increasing Bitcoin’s user base and awareness.

Where is the bottom?

Regarding whether now is the time to “buy the dip,” respondents are divided:

One camp believes the bottom is far from reached. When no one dares to buy the dip anymore, that will be the real bottom. There may still be opportunities to accumulate below $70,000 within the next two years.

Another advocates a dollar-cost averaging strategy. $60,000 is a historic reference point for bottom-fishing (roughly half of the all-time high), an ideal zone for DCA or incremental buying. But before that, the market may experience 1-2 months of significant volatility.

The general consensus: avoid leverage, don’t chase highs, patience and discipline outweigh predictions.

From “sentimental bull” to “structural bull”

The decline of cycle theory essentially reflects a shift from emotion-driven to structure-driven markets.

Once, a simple technical chart or a halving story could trigger hundreds of billions in capital inflows. Now, it requires the combined effect of legal frameworks, institutional risk management processes, and long-term allocation logic.

This means markets are more rational, but growth will be slower—both a challenge and a sign of maturity.

For investors, this changing era demands an upgrade in thinking: no longer blindly trust cycle patterns, but focus on liquidity trends, institutional behavior, and the real value of tokenomics. As Bitcoin gradually integrates into the global financial system, opportunities remain vast—just requiring more patience and deeper understanding.