The 4-year cycle debate is heating up again.
Traditional halving-driven cycles worked when $BTC was smaller and retail-dominated. Now we're dealing with:
• Institutional capital flows that don't care about halvings
• Macro liquidity cycles (Fed policy > mining rewards)
• ETF inflows creating constant buy pressure
• Regulatory clarity changing the game
The question isn't IF cycles exist anymore - it's WHETHER they still follow the old 4-year playbook or if we're entering a new regime where:
→ Cycles compress (18-24 months instead of 48)
→ Drawdowns get shallower (institutions buy dips)
→ Tops become less parabolic (distribution is smoother)
Personally? The halving still matters for supply shock narratives, but liquidity and macro are now the main drivers. We might see elongated cycles or even a supercycle if conditions align.
What's your take - are we still running on Bitcoin Standard Time or has the market evolved past it?
Traditional halving-driven cycles worked when $BTC was smaller and retail-dominated. Now we're dealing with:
• Institutional capital flows that don't care about halvings
• Macro liquidity cycles (Fed policy > mining rewards)
• ETF inflows creating constant buy pressure
• Regulatory clarity changing the game
The question isn't IF cycles exist anymore - it's WHETHER they still follow the old 4-year playbook or if we're entering a new regime where:
→ Cycles compress (18-24 months instead of 48)
→ Drawdowns get shallower (institutions buy dips)
→ Tops become less parabolic (distribution is smoother)
Personally? The halving still matters for supply shock narratives, but liquidity and macro are now the main drivers. We might see elongated cycles or even a supercycle if conditions align.
What's your take - are we still running on Bitcoin Standard Time or has the market evolved past it?