LoginAll You Need to Know About What Happened to Bitcoin’s 4-Year Cycle
How ETFs, policy, and global liquidity reshaped Bitcoin’s market structure after the 2024 halving
I have spent years working across crypto content, research, and market analysis, watching narratives rise, harden into doctrine, and eventually fail under real market pressure.
Few ideas shaped Bitcoin investor behavior more than the four-year cycle. Halvings reduced supply. Prices surged. Crashes followed. The rhythm felt inevitable.
After the 2024 halving, that model stopped explaining what the market was doing.
Price broke prior highs early. Volatility compressed instead of expanding. Institutional capital, policy decisions, and global liquidity began exerting more influence than issuance mechanics alone.
This piece breaks down what changed, why the old cycle lost its timing power, and what actually drives Bitcoin’s market behavior heading into 2026.
Bitcoin’s four-year cycle has shaped how investors interpret crypto market behavior for more than a decade. Rooted in halving events that reduce mining rewards every 210,000 blocks, the cycle historically aligned with large price expansions followed by deep corrections. This framework guided market expectations through multiple bull and bear phases, creating what many considered a predictable rhythm in an otherwise chaotic asset class.
Following the April 19, 2024 halving at block 840,000, however, the familiar script began to diverge. Price action unfolded earlier than expected, volatility compressed instead of expanding, and traditional post-halving signals failed to materialize. For the first time in Bitcoin’s history, a post-halving year ended with negative returns — Bitcoin closed 2025 down more than 30% from its October all-time high of $126,080, marking an unprecedented deviation from historical patterns.
As institutional participation accelerated and policy influence intensified, prominent industry figures including ARK Invest CEO Cathie Wood, BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes, and Bitwise executives Matt Hougan and Hunter Horsley declared the four-year cycle dead throughout 2025. Investors began questioning whether the four-year cycle still functions as a reliable market model or whether Bitcoin has transitioned into a different structural regime entirely.
This question matters because the market environment has fundamentally changed. Institutional investors now hold Bitcoin through regulated vehicles that didn’t exist in previous cycles. Policy decisions exert measurable influence on demand through mechanisms like the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. Global liquidity conditions increasingly dictate capital flows more than supply schedules. Against this backdrop, reassessing the relevance of the four-year cycle is not academic — it is necessary for anyone seriously analyzing Bitcoin markets.
The Foundation: How Bitcoin’s Four-Year Cycle Works
Bitcoin’s four-year cycle originates from a fixed monetary rule embedded in its protocol. Every 210,000 blocks, approximately once every four years, the block subsidy paid to miners is reduced by 50 percent. This halving mechanism slows the rate of new Bitcoin issuance and introduces programmed scarcity — a design feature Satoshi Nakamoto built into Bitcoin’s code from inception.
At launch in 2009, miners earned 50 BTC per block. The first halving on November 28, 2012 reduced rewards to 25 BTC. Subsequent halvings on July 9, 2016 and May 11, 2020 lowered rewards to 12.5 BTC and 6.25 BTC respectively. The most recent halving on April 19–20, 2024 reduced issuance to 3.125 BTC per block, cutting new daily supply from approximately 900 BTC to 450 BTC.
Historically, these supply reductions coincided with a recurring price pattern that became deeply embedded in investor psychology:
Pre-Halving Accumulation: Bitcoin tended to rally in anticipation of the halving event as market participants positioned for reduced supply. This anticipatory phase typically began 12–18 months before the halving date.
Post-Halving Acceleration: Within 12 to 18 months following halvings, Bitcoin experienced parabolic price acceleration. Historical data shows Bitcoin appreciated between 53.3% to 122.5% in the six months following previous halvings, with peak gains occurring roughly 12–18 months post-event.
Cycle Peak and Correction: After reaching new all-time highs, Bitcoin experienced sharp drawdowns ranging from 65% to 80% from peak levels. These corrections marked transitions from bull to bear markets.
Extended Bear Markets: Prolonged consolidation periods followed before the next cycle began, typically lasting 12–24 months until accumulation for the next halving started.
The 2013 cycle saw Bitcoin rise from under $13 to over $1,100 before retracing to near $200 — an 82% drawdown. In 2017, price advanced from roughly $650 to nearly $20,000, followed by an 84% decline to $3,200. The 2020 to 2021 cycle lifted Bitcoin from approximately $8,500 to $69,000 before falling 77% to around $15,500 by late 2022.
This repetition reinforced investor behavior. As awareness of the pattern spread, market participants positioned ahead of anticipated milestones, strengthening the cycle through collective expectation. That reflexivity proved powerful in markets dominated by retail capital and limited derivatives infrastructure — but it established dependencies that would later prove fragile.
The 2024 Halving: When the Script Changed
The April 2024 halving represented a structural inflection point that shattered historical precedent. For the first time, Bitcoin surpassed its prior all-time high before the halving occurred. Price reached approximately $73,000 in March 2024, exceeding the November 2021 peak of $69,000 while block rewards were still 6.25 BTC.
This early breakout signaled a fundamental shift in demand dynamics. The rally was not driven by retail speculation or leverage expansion typical of previous cycles. It was driven by institutional inflows following the January 11, 2024 approval of spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds in the United States — a regulatory milestone that fundamentally transformed crypto accessibility.
The impact of ETF approval on market structure cannot be overstated. BlackRock’s IBIT ETF accumulated over $62 billion in net inflows since launch, with total U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF inflows reaching approximately $56.9 billion by late 2025 according to Farside Investors data. This represented the fastest-growing ETF category in history, surpassing even gold ETF adoption rates.
Spot ETF demand altered the post-halving trajectory as well. Historically, Bitcoin appreciated between roughly 50% and 120% in the six months following prior halvings. In contrast, the six months following April 2024 delivered approximately 41% gains — from $63,762 on halving day to around $90,446 by mid-November. Price appreciation persisted, but without the parabolic acceleration typical of earlier cycles.
Instead of entering a speculative blow-off phase characterized by extreme volatility and euphoric sentiment, Bitcoin transitioned into a period of controlled, range-bound growth. Monthly Relative Strength Index (RSI) readings — a momentum indicator that measures overbought and oversold conditions — remained largely between 60 and 70 rather than reaching the extreme levels above 90 observed near past cycle peaks. This moderation suggested measured accumulation rather than speculative mania.
Most notably, Bitcoin entered 2025 trading below its opening price for the year, eventually closing 2025 down more than 30% from its October peak. This marked the first instance in which a post-halving year failed to close decisively higher — a deviation that fundamentally challenged the assumption that halvings alone dictate short-term price outcomes.
Vivek Sen, founder of Bitcoin public relations firm Bitgrow Lab, declared the four-year cycle “officially dead” in late 2025, citing the influx of institutional investors and macroeconomic environment as key factors dampening its relevance. He emphasized that Bitcoin now reacts more to liquidity conditions, interest rates, regulation, and geopolitical risks than to halving schedules — a sentiment echoed across industry analysis.
Institutional Capital: The Structural Shift Reshaping Markets
Institutional participation fundamentally reshaped Bitcoin’s market structure in ways that extend far beyond simple demand dynamics. Unlike retail traders who chase momentum and panic sell during corrections, institutions allocate capital based on portfolio construction frameworks, risk management mandates, and long-term macro views. Their behavior tends to dampen volatility and extend trend duration rather than amplify speculative extremes.
Spot Bitcoin ETFs removed operational and regulatory barriers that previously constrained institutional access. These products offered regulated custody through firms like Coinbase Prime, which held $245 billion in institutional assets under custody as of June 30, 2025, standardized reporting that satisfied compliance requirements, and seamless integration into existing investment systems that institutional investors already used.
ETF adoption exceeded even bullish early expectations. BlackRock’s IBIT alone surpassed 800,000 BTC ($97 billion) in assets under management by October 2025 — less than two years after launching. This represented 3.8% of Bitcoin’s total 21 million supply, positioning BlackRock’s holdings ahead of MicroStrategy, the leading Bitcoin treasury company which held 640,031 BTC (3.1% of supply).
Quarterly 13-F filings revealed the composition of this institutional demand. By Q4 2024, institutional investors represented 26.3% of total Bitcoin ETF assets under management, up from 21.1% in Q3. Hedge funds alone accounted for 41% of all institutional Bitcoin ETF holdings, surpassing investment advisors for the first time and signaling growing sophistication in crypto allocation strategies.
This shift influenced market correlations in profound ways. Bitcoin’s return profile increasingly aligned with broader risk assets following ETF approval. Research examining the relationship between Bitcoin and the S&P 500 found that daily returns correlation measured 0.2 from January 2014 to April 2025, but when parsed into smaller three-year periods, correlations remained near zero in initial periods before jumping into positive territory in 2020 and sustaining higher levels over the past five years.
More granular analysis revealed even stronger relationships. An academic study examining the post-ETF period found correlation between Bitcoin and the S&P 500 shifted to a sharp upward trend immediately following January 2024, with rolling correlations jumping to approximately 0.5. The study concluded that “the approval of the Bitcoin Spot ETF acted as a catalyst, transforming Bitcoin from an isolated asset into one that moves in tandem with traditional equities.”
During periods of market stress, these correlations intensified further. CME Group analysis identified that higher positive correlations are frequently evident during stressed market environments, such as the February-March 2020 COVID-19 onset, the 2022 period when the Ukraine war started and the Federal Reserve increased interest rates, and the January to early April 2025 volatility spike. This asymmetrical correlation relationship meant positive correlation frequently increased when uncertainty rose, suggesting risk-off investor sentiment for Bitcoin resembled equity market behavior.
The implication was structural integration. Bitcoin began behaving less like an isolated alternative asset and more like a macro-sensitive instrument within the global financial system. This integration reduced tail-risk volatility — Fidelity Digital Assets research found Bitcoin’s realized volatility has declined substantially, with the asset now less volatile than 33 S&P 500 stocks — while increasing exposure to broader liquidity conditions that drive all risk assets.
Policy and Regulation as Primary Market Variables
Policy developments emerged as material price drivers in 2025 and early 2026, in many cases eclipsing traditional on-chain signals and halving-based expectations. Regulatory clarity, rather than halving schedules, increasingly shaped institutional participation and capital deployment decisions.
Executive actions by the U.S. administration marked a dramatic shift. On January 23, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology” that established clear policy priorities including protection of self-custody rights, promotion of blockchain development, and prohibition of central bank digital currencies. The order also created the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets within the National Economic Council, tasked with developing comprehensive federal regulatory frameworks.
The administration’s most significant move came on March 6, 2025, when Trump issued an executive order establishing a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile. The order directed federal agencies to maintain custody of all Bitcoin obtained through criminal forfeitures or civil proceedings and prohibited sales from the reserve, positioning it as a permanent store of value. The U.S. government’s existing holdings exceeded 207,000 BTC, worth approximately $17 billion as of March 15, 2025, forming the foundation of this reserve.
White House AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks called the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve “like a digital Fort Knox” for cryptocurrency, emphasizing that it would be funded exclusively with seized assets, ensuring no taxpayer burden. The Treasury and Commerce Secretaries were authorized to develop budget-neutral strategies for acquiring additional Bitcoin, though the mechanics of such acquisition remained undefined.
Congressional action provided additional clarity. The GENIUS Act, passed in mid-2025, created the first comprehensive federal framework for dollar-backed stablecoins, imposing 100% reserve backing requirements and establishing audit standards. While focused on stablecoins, the law’s passage signaled growing political consensus around crypto regulation and demonstrated that legislative frameworks could move from proposal to law.
Market structure legislation progressed through Congress as well. White House crypto adviser David Sacks stated in early 2026 that lawmakers were “closer than ever” to passing landmark crypto market structure legislation. The proposed framework would end the jurisdictional dispute between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, providing clear rules for which agency regulates which digital assets — a clarity that institutional investors had demanded for years.
State governments joined the federal push. Texas established the first state-managed fund to hold Bitcoin in June 2025, allocating funds to BlackRock’s spot Bitcoin ETF with plans for direct BTC investment. Arizona and New Hampshire passed similar legislation, positioning themselves to announce cryptocurrency purchases as part of treasury strategy in 2026.
These policy developments influenced institutional thinking more than halving schedules. Regulatory clarity removed uncertainty that previously deterred conservative investors. The Strategic Bitcoin Reserve provided sovereign validation, positioning Bitcoin as a strategic asset alongside gold and petroleum reserves in the federal stockpile. Political support created confidence that crypto-friendly policies would persist regardless of short-term market conditions.
However, policy impact remained conditional on broader market dynamics. Analysts noted that if favorable legislation emerged without coinciding liquidity expansion, its market impact would prove limited. Conversely, policy clarity combined with accommodative monetary conditions could trigger sustained institutional demand capable of overwhelming traditional cycle dynamics — a scenario that materialized only partially through 2025.
Global Liquidity: The Dominant Driver in Modern Bitcoin Markets
Bitcoin’s sensitivity to global liquidity conditions increased materially as institutional participation grew, fundamentally altering the asset’s price discovery mechanism. Analysis of historical price movements reveals relationships that eclipse the predictive power of halving schedules.
Bitcoin moves in the direction of global M2 money supply 83% of the time in any 12-month period — a correlation higher than virtually any other major asset class. This strong relationship makes Bitcoin an effective barometer for liquidity conditions in the global financial system, but it also means the asset responds more to central bank balance sheets than to its own supply schedule.
Global M2 expanded dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic as central banks injected unprecedented liquidity. This monetary expansion coincided precisely with Bitcoin’s explosive bull run from March 2020 (when Bitcoin traded around $5,000) to November 2021 (when it peaked at $69,000) — a 1,280% increase. When central banks began tightening policy in 2022, raising interest rates aggressively and reducing balance sheets through quantitative tightening, Bitcoin declined 77% alongside other risk assets. The correlation was unmistakable: loose liquidity drove prices up, tight liquidity pushed prices down.
The relationship temporarily broke down in early 2024. Bitcoin rallied to new highs above $73,000 in March while M2 growth remained subdued and even negative in year-over-year terms. This decoupling reflected institutional demand through newly approved ETFs rather than broad liquidity expansion — a supply shock from ETF demand overwhelming modest liquidity headwinds. By late 2025, however, the liquidity correlation reasserted itself. Bitcoin’s price fell 30% from its $126,080 peak while global M2 growth remained stagnant, suggesting the market was resetting expectations and repricing assets based on actual liquidity availability rather than anticipated future easing.
Several factors explain Bitcoin’s exceptional sensitivity to liquidity conditions. Unlike stocks, which generate earnings and dividends that provide fundamental support independent of liquidity, Bitcoin lacks cash flows. Unlike bonds, which offer contractual repayment and coupon payments, Bitcoin provides no yield. Unlike gold, which serves as a traditional safe haven with thousands of years of precedent, Bitcoin remains primarily classified as a risk asset despite “digital gold” narratives. Without structural support from fundamentals, safe-haven demand, or yield, Bitcoin responds directly to the availability of capital in financial markets.
The Federal Reserve’s policy trajectory became crucial for Bitcoin’s 2026 outlook. After raising the federal funds rate from near zero in early 2022 to a peak of 5.25–5.50% by July 2023, the Fed began cutting rates with a 50-basis-point reduction in September 2024 followed by additional cuts. Market pricing in early 2026 indicated probability of unchanged rates through early quarters but better than two-thirds chance of at least two additional cuts by year-end. This easing cycle stood in stark contrast to the tightening periods of 2018 and 2022, when rising rates crushed Bitcoin and other risk assets.
Beyond interest rates, the Fed’s balance sheet matters tremendously. The central bank effectively initiated quantitative easing in late 2025, announcing plans to purchase Treasury Bills to stabilize short-term funding markets. While distinct from formal QE programs launched during crises, these operations nonetheless increased system liquidity at the margin. Historical precedent is striking: the last time significant QE began was March 2020 following COVID-19’s onset, and over the subsequent 12 months, Bitcoin surged more than 1,000%. While past performance doesn’t guarantee future results, the pattern highlighted Bitcoin’s sensitivity to central bank liquidity provision.
Global liquidity extends beyond U.S. monetary policy. BitMEX founder Arthur Hayes argued that Bitcoin’s four-year cycles tied directly to both U.S. Dollar and Chinese Yuan dynamics. He explained that the 2013 peak resulted from post-2008 financial crisis money printing, the 2017 peak stemmed from yuan devaluation against the dollar creating capital flight, and the 2021 peak followed post-COVID monetary expansion across major economies. This perspective emphasized that Bitcoin responds to global, not just domestic, liquidity conditions — and that understanding cross-border capital flows becomes essential for price forecasting.
The dollar’s trajectory provides another key indicator. The U.S. dollar index fell approximately 7–9% in 2025 against major currency baskets, with the euro gaining 13% and the pound rising 7–8%. Historically, sustained dollar weakness aligns with stronger Bitcoin performance as a softer dollar supports global liquidity conditions, eases financial conditions in emerging markets, and strengthens the narrative for scarce, non-sovereign assets that aren’t subject to debasement through monetary expansion.
Ryan Yoon, senior analyst at Seoul-based Tiger Research, told Decrypt: “Bitcoin reacts preemptively when markets expect quasi-QE. Since Bitcoin is highly sensitive to liquidity, it is expected to lead the market.” This forward-looking behavior explains why Bitcoin often moves before official policy announcements — market participants anticipate liquidity conditions and position accordingly, creating price movements that precede fundamental catalysts.
Market Structure: From Speculation to Systemic Integration
Bitcoin’s integration into traditional financial infrastructure represents perhaps the most profound structural shift in the asset’s history. Bitcoin no longer operates in isolation but connects deeply to existing financial markets through multiple channels that transmit information, liquidity, and risk bidirectionally.
Exchange-traded funds created the primary integration channel. With over $113.8 billion in assets under management across the U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF complex and cumulative net inflows of nearly $56.9 billion since January 2024, Bitcoin ETFs represent substantial daily trading volume. These flows influence spot market prices through arbitrage mechanisms operated by authorized participants. When ETF demand exceeds supply, APs purchase Bitcoin on spot markets to create new ETF shares, transmitting institutional buying pressure directly to underlying assets. When redemptions occur, the reverse happens. This arbitrage ensures ETF prices track spot markets while creating a direct transmission mechanism from traditional finance to crypto markets.
Derivatives markets expanded alongside spot products, adding complexity and interconnectedness. Bitcoin futures contracts traded on CME since December 2017 provide institutional investors with regulated derivative exposure. Options markets grew substantially, with record quarterly expirations reaching $23.7 billion in December 2025. These derivatives enable sophisticated trading strategies including hedging, leveraged exposure, and arbitrage, but they also introduce complexity whereby positioning across futures curves and options gamma dynamics influence spot prices in ways divorced from fundamental supply-demand dynamics.
Corporate adoption extended beyond direct Bitcoin purchases. Companies explored Bitcoin-backed credit facilities, with the first corporate loans collateralized by BTC emerging in major economies. Tokenized treasury strategies that use Bitcoin as part of broader digital collateral stacks showed how deeply the asset was being woven into financial infrastructure. This integration tends to compress volatility over time as multiple stabilizing mechanisms emerge, but it also means liquidity shocks can transmit more directly between Bitcoin and other risk markets, eliminating the isolation that previously characterized crypto during traditional market stress.
The custody industry matured significantly. Professional custodians like Coinbase, BitGo, and Fidelity Digital Assets now hold billions in client Bitcoin, providing institutional-grade security, insurance coverage, and regulatory compliance that remove operational barriers previously deterring institutional participation. However, this concentration creates new risks. Approximately 48% of all Bitcoin held by major custodians resides in U.S. ETFs, creating significant concentration reminiscent of the Mt. Gox era when a single exchange held substantial supply — though modern custody arrangements include far superior security and insurance frameworks.
Bitcoin’s realized volatility dropped substantially compared to earlier cycles. Fidelity Digital Assets research found Bitcoin is currently less volatile than 33 S&P 500 stocks, and as recently as late 2023, 92 S&P 500 stocks exhibited higher volatility than Bitcoin. The asset’s annualized volatility fell as much as 75% from peak historical levels by mid-2025. This stabilization resulted from deeper liquidity pools, the “strong hands” effect where large institutional investors prove less prone to panic selling during downturns, and the rise of regulated investment products bringing capital managed under traditional risk frameworks that mandate position limits and drawdown controls.
Fidelity’s hash rate data showed Bitcoin’s hash rate rose above one zettahash per second in April 2024, reflecting continued investment in mining infrastructure. The 30-day mean hash rate and difficulty increased roughly 40% within the year following the halving, potentially indicating sustained long-term confidence in the network despite hash price — the expected return for each hash a miner generates — falling approximately 60% since April 2024 as competition distributed reduced rewards across more participants.
Trading infrastructure evolved as well. Institutional-grade trading platforms now offer algorithmic execution, prime brokerage services connecting multiple liquidity venues, and sophisticated order types including time-weighted average price (TWAP) and volume-weighted average price (VWAP) algorithms. Market makers provide continuous two-sided liquidity, tightening bid-ask spreads from 50–100 basis points in early years to 1–5 basis points on major exchanges, dramatically reducing slippage for large orders. These improvements make Bitcoin more accessible to traditional investors accustomed to deep, liquid markets with tight execution.
The increasing sophistication means Bitcoin behaves more like a traditional macro asset than a niche speculative instrument. Price movements reflect positioning across futures curves, options gamma dynamics creating convexity effects, and cross-asset correlations driving systematic flows. This complexity makes simple halving-based predictions less reliable as multiple variables influence outcomes simultaneously, requiring analysis frameworks that incorporate derivatives positioning, institutional flows, macro conditions, and technical levels rather than relying solely on supply schedule changes.
The Case for Cycle Evolution Rather Than Death
Not everyone accepts that the four-year cycle has ended. Several analysts argue the pattern persists but expresses differently under current market conditions. They point to historical precedent showing cycles evolve as markets mature, fundamental supply dynamics that remain unchanged despite shifting demand composition, and on-chain metrics that continue exhibiting familiar patterns even as price behavior diverges from historical norms.
Markus Thielen, head of research at 10x Research, stated during a December edition of The Wolf Of All Streets Podcast that the cycle remains intact but no longer responds purely to programmed supply cuts. The evolving structure reflects Bitcoin’s maturation into a macro asset class with broader influences on price action, but the underlying rhythm endures. Thielen’s perspective emphasizes that cycles don’t disappear — they transform as market structure changes.
Supply constraints still matter fundamentally. Bitcoin’s issuance continues declining with each halving, creating long-term scarcity even as miners develop sophisticated financing options through hashrate derivatives and forward sales, and institutional holders lock up supply through custody arrangements and long-term allocation mandates. Over the next six years through 2030, miners will produce roughly 700,000 new Bitcoin based on the current issuance schedule. At prices around $100,000, that represents $70 billion in new supply. Meanwhile, institutional cryptocurrency demand could reach $3 trillion in the same period according to industry projections. This 40-to-one supply-demand imbalance suggests significant structural upward pressure on price regardless of short-term cycle deviations or tactical positioning.
Historical patterns provide important context. While the current cycle deviated from previous timelines in terms of when price peaked relative to the halving date, Bitcoin demonstrated similar multiplicative behavior when examined from cycle lows. From cycle lows, Bitcoin increased 5.72 times by late 2024, comparable to 5.18 times at the same point in the 2015–2018 cycle and 5.93 times in the 2018–2022 cycle. If patterns continue following previous cycle templates, price could increase approximately 15 times from cycle lows, implying potential appreciation toward $200,000–250,000 ranges during the next 12–18 months.
The timing argument remains viable when viewed through institutional lenses. Market participants stood roughly 18 months past the April 2024 halving by late 2025, matching the typical length of past bull runs measured from halving to peak. Yet no clear reversal into deep bear market had materialized. Instead of interpreting this as cycle death, some analysts view it as evidence the cycle extends longer under institutional influence. Where retail traders created parabolic spikes followed by panic-driven crashes compressing timeframes, institutional capital produces steadier, more sustainable appreciation extending cycle duration while reducing amplitude of both rallies and corrections.
On-chain metrics support continuation arguments. Supply held by long-term holders — addresses that haven’t moved Bitcoin in over a year — shows distribution patterns around psychological price levels like $100,000, but overall accumulation trends remain intact. The percentage of supply classified as long-term holdings continues rising, indicating conviction among holders. Miner capitulation events that typically mark cycle bottoms and force distribution of mining inventory haven’t occurred, suggesting the market hasn’t completed its distribution phase before entering the next accumulation period.
Network fundamentals stay strong independent of price action. Hash rate reaching all-time highs above one zettahash per second — the measure of computational power securing the network — continues even as hash price declined 60% post-halving. Transaction volumes remain robust despite price consolidation, with average daily transactions exceeding 400,000 consistently. These metrics indicate underlying network health and growing usage independent of price cycles, providing foundation for future appreciation when liquidity and sentiment conditions align favorably.
Bitcoin’s market dominance increased from 64% to 72% following the fourth halving, while Ethereum and Solana’s dominance fell 56% and 25% respectively. This relative strength suggests capital rotation toward Bitcoin as a macro asset during uncertain periods, potentially indicating investors view Bitcoin differently than alternative cryptocurrencies — treating it more like digital gold than a speculative technology bet.
The four-year cycle may not have died but rather evolved significantly. Institutional participation extends bullish trends beyond historical timeframes and reduces bearish extremes by providing stabilizing demand during corrections, creating longer cycles with lower volatility and less pronounced peaks and troughs. This represents maturation, not destruction, of the underlying supply-driven pattern that halvings create — a distinction with substantial implications for forecasting and portfolio management strategies.
The 2026 Outlook: What Current Data Suggests
Price predictions for Bitcoin in 2026 vary dramatically, reflecting genuine uncertainty about which forces will dominate market direction. Analysts cluster forecasts into distinct camps based on different assumptions about institutional adoption rates, regulatory clarity, and macroeconomic conditions — each supported by reasonable analytical frameworks but reaching different conclusions.
Ultra-bullish projections from prominent industry figures target $200,000 to $250,000. These forecasts rest on fixed supply dynamics, accelerating institutional adoption through ETFs and corporate treasuries, and assumptions that post-halving supply squeeze combined with sustained demand will overwhelm macro headwinds. Some tie this upside specifically to liquidity cycles, arguing that if global M2 money supply growth accelerates meaningfully and the Federal Reserve maintains accommodative stance, Bitcoin could clear $200,000 by mid-to-late 2026 following historical liquidity correlation patterns.
Moderate institutional forecasts cluster in the mid-six-figure range with more nuanced conditioning. Several large financial institutions point to end-2026 ranges around $140,000–160,000 as base cases, framing these as realistic outcomes after
If you’re interested in how crypto markets are evolving beyond legacy narratives, I’ll be publishing more long-form analysis here.
All You Need to Know About What Happened to Bitcoin’s 4-Year Cycle was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
