Original | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)
In the eighteen years since the birth of Bitcoin, the "four-year cycle" theory has almost become the cornerstone of belief in the cryptocurrency market. Bitcoin halving, supply contraction, price increases, and the relay of altcoin seasons—this narrative not only explains the historical transitions between bull and bear markets but also profoundly influences investors' position management, project financing rhythms, and even the entire industry's understanding of "time."
However, after the halving in April 2024, Bitcoin only rose from $60,000 to a historical high of $126,000, a growth rate far lower than in previous cycles, while altcoins showed significant weakness. Macroeconomic liquidity and policy variables have instead become more sensitive anchors for the market. Especially after the large-scale entry of spot ETFs, institutional funds, and traditional financial instruments, a question has been repeatedly discussed:
Does the four-year cycle in the crypto market still exist?
To address this, we specially invited seven senior practitioners in the crypto field for a dialogue that spans optimism and caution, bull and bear market predictions. They are:
- Jason | Founder of NDV Fund: Previously responsible for Chinese investments at the family office of Alibaba founder Joe Tsai, involved in both primary and secondary markets. His investment style leans towards combining the rigor of the primary market with the liquidity of the secondary market. His first fund achieved approximately 275% absolute return in 23 months, has fully exited, and as an open-ended fund, ensured all investors made a profit.
- Ye Su | Founding Partner of ArkStream Capital: Over the past eight years, he has invested in more than a hundred companies and projects, including Aave, Filecoin, and Ethena, aligning with institutional investors.
- Jack Yi | Founder of Liquid Capital: Focused on real-time positions and trading strategies, he pays attention to the allocation value of mainstream assets, stablecoins, and exchange ecosystems at different stages of the cycle.
- James | Founder of DFG: Currently managing over $1 billion in assets, he was an early investor in companies like LedgerX, Ledger, Coinlist, and Circle, and is also an early supporter of protocols like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and Uniswap.
- Joanna Liang | Founding Partner of Jsquare Fund: A post-90s entrepreneur and investor, she currently manages over $200 million in assets and specifically operates a $50 million LP fund; she has invested in several star projects including Pudgy Penguins, Circle, Amber Group, and Render Network.
- Bruce | Founder of MaiTong MSX: With a mining background, he assesses the long-term profit potential and risk boundaries of the crypto market based on mining costs, cycle returns, and industry maturity.
- CryptoPainter | Crypto Data Analyst: Utilizing on-chain data and technical indicators as primary tools, he combines historical cycle characteristics to quantitatively assess market phases and trend inflection points.
1. What exactly do we mean by the "four-year cycle"?
Before discussing whether the cycle has "failed," it is essential to clarify a fundamental question:
What exactly does the "four-year cycle" refer to?
From the general consensus of the interviewed guests, the traditional four-year cycle is primarily driven by Bitcoin's block reward halving, which occurs approximately every four years. Halving means a decrease in new supply, changes in miner behavior, and long-term support for the price center, which is the core and mathematically grounded part of the "four-year cycle" narrative.
However, some guests have incorporated the crypto cycle into a broader financial framework. NDV founder Jason believes that the four-year cycle is actually a dual-driven model of political cycles and liquidity cycles, rather than just a simple halving code rule. The so-called four years highly coincides with the U.S. election cycle and the global central banks' liquidity release rhythm. Previously, people only focused on halving, thinking it was the only variable, because in earlier cycles, the amount of new Bitcoin was substantial. But now, with the approval of spot ETFs, Bitcoin has entered the macro asset sequence, and the speed of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet expansion and global M2 growth are the true core defining the cycle. Therefore, in his view, the four-year cycle is essentially a cycle of fiat currency liquidity. Simply considering the supply-side impact mathematically, this cycle (2024-2028) will only add 600,000 coins, which is too small compared to the approximately 19 million already issued, and the less than $60 billion in new selling pressure can easily be absorbed by Wall Street.
2. A pattern, or a self-fulfilling narrative?
When a concept is repeatedly validated and widely disseminated, it often evolves from a "pattern" into a "consensus," and further into a narrative. Narratives, in turn, can influence market behavior. Therefore, an unavoidable question is: Is the four-year cycle an objectively existing economic law, or is it a market narrative that is collectively believed and thus continuously self-fulfilling?
Regarding the causes of the four-year cycle, the views of the interviewed guests are largely consistent, believing it is the result of the interplay between objective mechanisms and market narratives, but with different dominant forces at different stages.
As CryptoPainter mentioned, the four-year cycle indeed had extraordinary significance in the early days when miner output was high, but this supply-demand changing cycle has a clear marginal effect; theoretically, with multiple halvings, the impact of the halving event on supply-demand changes also diminishes, so the percentage increase in each bull market is also logarithmically reduced. It can be anticipated that the next halving cycle will produce a smaller price impact. Jason similarly pointed out that as the market size grows, the impact of pure supply-side changes is diminishing. The current cycle is more about self-fulfilling liquidity.
Jsquare Fund founding partner Joanna Liang added from a market behavior perspective that the four-year cycle has a considerable degree of "self-fulfilling" characteristics. With changes in the participation structure of institutions and retail investors, the relative importance of macro policies, regulatory environments, liquidity conditions, and halving events is reordered in each cycle. In this dynamic game, the four-year cycle is no longer an "iron law," but merely one of many influencing factors. In her view, it is not impossible for the market to break the four-year cycle's rules and even sprint towards a "super cycle" because the fundamentals are continuously evolving.
Overall, the consensus among the guests is: The four-year cycle indeed had a solid supply-demand foundation in its early days, but as miners' influence in the market declines and Bitcoin gradually shifts towards asset allocation attributes, the cycle is transitioning from being strongly mechanism-driven to a result of the interplay of narratives, behaviors, and macro factors. The current cycle may have shifted from "hard constraints" to "soft expectations."
3. The current increase is significantly smaller; is it a natural decrease in the cycle, or is it overshadowed by ETFs and institutional funds?
Regarding this issue, almost all guests provided relatively consistent directional judgments: this is a natural result of diminishing marginal effects, rather than a sudden failure of the cycle. Any growth market will experience a process of diminishing returns. As Bitcoin's market capitalization continues to expand, each new "multiple" requires exponential growth in capital inflows, so the decline in return rates is itself a natural law.
From this perspective, "the increase is not as much as before" is, in fact, a result that aligns with long-term logic.
However, deeper changes come from the market structure itself.
Joanna Liang believes that the biggest difference in this cycle compared to the past is the early entry of spot ETFs and institutional funds. In the previous cycle, Bitcoin reached a historical high mainly driven by marginal liquidity from retail investors; in this cycle, over $50 billion in ETF funds have continuously flowed in before and after the halving, absorbing the supply shock before it truly manifests. This has caused price increases to be spread over a longer time dimension, rather than concentrated in a parabolic explosion after halving.
Jack Yi also added from the perspective of market capitalization and volatility that as Bitcoin enters the trillion-dollar level, the decrease in volatility is itself an inevitable result of mainstream assetization. In the early days, when market capitalization was smaller, capital inflows could easily lead to exponential increases; whereas at the current scale, even doubling requires extremely large new capital.
DFG founder James positioned halving as a "still existing but decreasingly important variable." In his view, future halvings are more like secondary catalysts, with the true determinants of trends being the flow of institutional funds, the realization of real demands like RWA, and the macro liquidity environment.
However, MaiTong MSX founder Bruce does not fully agree with this point. He believes that halving increases Bitcoin's production costs, and costs will ultimately impose long-term constraints on prices. Even if the industry enters a mature stage and overall return rates decline, halving will still positively impact prices through cost increases, though this impact will no longer manifest in the form of violent fluctuations.
In summary, the guests do not believe that "the decrease in increase" is caused by a single factor. A more reasonable explanation is: The marginal impact of halving is declining, while ETFs and institutional funds are changing the rhythm and form of price formation. This is not a failure of halving, but rather that the market is no longer centered around a single explosive event of halving.
4. So where do we currently stand?
If the previous discussions focused more on whether the "cycle structure still holds," then this question is clearly more relevant: From our current standpoint, are we in a bull market, a bear market, or some transitional phase that has yet to be accurately named?
It is precisely on this point that the interviewed guests show the most significant divergence.
MSX founder Bruce is relatively pessimistic; he believes we are in the early stages of a typical bear market, and the end of the bull market has not been acknowledged by most participants. His judgment is based on the most fundamental cost and return structure. In the last cycle, Bitcoin's mining cost was about $20,000, with prices peaking at $69,000, giving miners a profit margin of nearly 70%. In this cycle, the post-halving mining cost has approached $70,000, and even if the price reaches the historical high of $126,000, the profit margin is only slightly above 40%. In Bruce's view, as an industry that has been around for nearly 20 years, the decline in return rates in each cycle is a normal phenomenon. Unlike in 2020-2021, in this cycle, a large amount of incremental capital has not chosen to enter the crypto market but has flowed into AI-related assets. At least in the North American market, the most active risk-seeking capital is still concentrated in the AI sector of the U.S. stock market.
CryptoPainter's judgment leans clearly towards the technical and data aspects. He believes that the current market has not yet entered a true cyclical bear market but is in a technical bear market—its core sign being the weekly level breaking below MA50. Both of the last two bull markets experienced technical bear markets in their later stages, but this does not mean the cycle immediately ends. A true cyclical bear market often requires a synchronized macroeconomic recession as a confirmation condition. Therefore, he describes the current phase as a "probationary state": the technical structure has weakened, but macro conditions have not yet given a final verdict. He specifically mentions that the total supply of stablecoins is still growing, and when stablecoins also stop growing for an extended period (more than two months), the arrival of a bear market will be confirmed.
In contrast, more guests lean towards the judgment that the cycle has indeed failed, and we are currently in a mid-to-late stage correction of a bull market, likely entering a phase of oscillating upward or slow bull mode in the future. Both Jason and Ye Su's judgments are based on global macro liquidity. In their view, the U.S. currently has almost no other options but to use monetary easing to delay the concentrated release of debt pressure. The interest rate cut cycle has just begun, and the "tap" of liquidity has not been turned off. Therefore, as long as global M2 continues to expand, crypto assets, being the most sensitive sponge to liquidity, have not ended their upward trend. Additionally, he mentions that a true bear market signal is when central banks begin to substantially tighten liquidity or when the real economy experiences severe recession leading to liquidity exhaustion. Currently, these indicators do not show abnormalities; rather, they indicate that liquidity is building up. Moreover, from the market's leverage perspective, if the contract positions are too high relative to market capitalization, it usually signals a short-term adjustment, but not a bear market signal.
Jack Yi also believes that Wall Street and institutions are reconstructing the financial system based on blockchain, with the chip structure becoming increasingly solid, no longer as prone to large fluctuations as in the early days dominated by retail investors. With the change in the Federal Reserve chair, the interest rate cut cycle is coming, coupled with the most favorable crypto policies in history, the current volatility can be seen as wide oscillation, with a bullish outlook in the medium to long term.
The divergence itself may be the most authentic characteristic of this stage. The judgments of our interviewed guests form an imperfect yet sufficiently real small sample: some have confirmed a bear market, while others are waiting for data to provide a final answer, but more people likely believe that the four-year cycle theory has fundamentally failed.
More importantly, it is no longer the only or even the main framework for understanding the market. The importance of halving, time, and sentiment is being reassessed, while macro liquidity, market structure, and asset attributes are becoming more critical variables.
5. The core driving force of the eternal bull market: from sentiment bull to structural bull
If the "four-year cycle" is weakening, and the future crypto market no longer presents clear bull-bear switches but enters a state of long-term oscillation with significantly compressed bear markets, then where does the core driving force supporting this structure come from?
Jason believes it is the systemic decline of fiat currency credit and the normalization of institutional allocation. As Bitcoin is gradually viewed as "digital gold" and enters the balance sheets of sovereign nations, pension funds, and hedge funds, its upward logic no longer relies on a single cyclical event but is closer to gold as a "long-term asset against fiat currency devaluation." The price performance will also show a spiral upward trend. At the same time, he emphasizes the importance of stablecoins. In his view, compared to Bitcoin, stablecoins have a larger potential user base, and their penetration path is more aligned with the real economy. From payments and settlements to cross-border capital flows, stablecoins are becoming the "interface layer" of a new generation of financial infrastructure. This means that the future growth of the crypto market will not rely entirely on speculative demand but will gradually embed itself into real financial and business activities.
Joanna Liang's judgment echoes this. She believes that an important variable for the future slow bull market comes from the continued adoption at the institutional level. Whether through spot ETFs or the tokenization path of RWA, as long as institutional allocation behavior continues, the market will present a "compound interest" upward structure—volatility will be smoothed out, but the trend will not reverse.
CryptoPainter's perspective is more direct. He points out that the right side of the BTCUSD trading pair is USD, so as long as global liquidity remains loose for a long time and the dollar is in a weak cycle, asset prices will not experience a deep bear market but will slowly oscillate upward through successive technical bear markets. The traditional bull-bear structure will also shift to a form similar to gold's "long-term oscillation - rise - long-term oscillation."
Of course, not everyone agrees with the "slow bull narrative."
Bruce's judgment about the future is clearly more pessimistic. He believes that the global economic structural problems have not been resolved: deteriorating employment conditions, young people opting out, extreme wealth concentration, and the continuous accumulation of geopolitical risks. Against this backdrop, the probability of a severe economic crisis occurring in 2026-2027 is not low. If macro systemic risks truly erupt, crypto assets will also find it hard to remain unscathed.
To some extent, the slow bull is not a consensus but a conditional judgment based on the continuation of liquidity.
6. Is there still a traditional "altcoin season"?
"Altcoin season" is almost an inseparable part of the four-year cycle narrative. However, in this cycle, its absence has become one of the most frequently discussed phenomena.
The poor performance of altcoins in this cycle can be attributed to multiple factors. Joanna points out that, first, the rise of Bitcoin's dominance has created a "safe haven within risk assets" pattern, making institutional funds more inclined to choose blue-chip assets. Second, the regulatory framework is gradually maturing, which makes altcoins with clear utility and compliance more favorable for long-term adoption. Third, this cycle lacks killer applications and clear narratives like DeFi and NFTs in the previous cycle.
Another consensus among the guests is that there may be a new altcoin season, but it will be more selective, focusing only on a few truly useful tokens that can generate revenue.
CryptoPainter puts the issue more thoroughly. He believes that a traditional altcoin season is impossible to reappear because the term "traditional" represents the total number of altcoins within a reasonable range, and the total number of altcoins has now unprecedentedly reached new highs. Even if macro liquidity spills in, there are too many monks and too little meat, making a broad rally impossible. Therefore, even if there is an altcoin season, it will be very rare and will occur in localized altcoin seasons driven by sector narratives. Focusing on individual altcoins is meaningless; attention should be on the track and sector.
Ye Su draws a parallel with the U.S. stock market: future altcoin performance will resemble the M7 in U.S. stocks—blue-chip altcoins will outperform the market in the long run, while small-cap altcoins may occasionally explode but with very weak sustainability.
Ultimately, the market structure has changed. It used to be a retail-driven attention economy; now it is an institution-driven reporting economy.
7. Position distribution
In such a market with a blurred cycle structure and fractured narratives, we also consulted several guests about their actual position distribution.
A striking fact is that most respondents have basically cleared out their altcoin positions and are mostly in a half-position state.
Jason's position strategy clearly leans towards "defensive + long-term." He states that he currently prefers to use gold instead of the dollar as a cash management tool to hedge against fiat currency risks. In terms of digital assets, most of his positions are allocated to BTC and ETH, but he remains cautious about ETH. They prefer assets with high certainty, namely hard currency (BTC) and exchange equity (Upbit).
CryptoPainter strictly adheres to the rule of "cash ratio not less than 50%," with his core allocations still in BTC and ETH, and altcoin positions below 10%. He exited all gold positions after it reached $3,500 and currently has no plans to reallocate to gold. He is also taking some short positions on U.S. stocks with significant valuation bubbles in the AI sector, using very low leverage.
Jack Yi has a relatively high risk appetite, with his fund nearly fully invested, but the structure is also concentrated: centered on ETH, with stablecoin logic (WLFI) and supplemented by large-cap assets like BTC, BCH, and BNB. The logic is not about betting on cycles but rather on the long-term structure of public chains, stablecoins, and exchanges.
In stark contrast is Bruce. He has nearly emptied all his crypto positions, including selling BTC around $110,000. In his view, there will still be opportunities to buy back below $70,000 in the next two years. The U.S. stock market is currently filled with defensive/cyclical stocks, and he plans to clear most of his U.S. stocks before next year's World Cup.
8. Is it a good time to bottom fish now?
This is the most actionable question of all. Bruce's attitude is relatively pessimistic; he believes we are far from the bottom. The true bottom appears at the moment when "no one dares to bottom fish anymore."
The cautious CryptoPainter also believes that the ideal price for bottom fishing or starting dollar-cost averaging is below $60,000. The logic is simple: starting to buy in after the peak price is halved has proven to be a successful strategy in every bull market. It is clear that this target will not be reached in the short term; his view of the current market is that after a large range oscillation in 1-2 months, there is hope to test prices above $100,000 again next year, but it is unlikely to reach new highs. Subsequently, as the macro monetary policy's benefits are exhausted, the market will lack follow-up liquidity and new narratives, officially entering a cyclical bear market, and then patiently waiting for monetary policy to initiate a new round of monetary easing and aggressive interest rate cuts.
In contrast, more guests have a relatively neutral to bullish attitude. They believe that now may not be the time for "aggressive bottom fishing," but it is a window period to start building positions gradually. The consensus is clear: do not use leverage, do not frequently trade, and discipline is far more important than judgment.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
