Bitget App
Trade smarter
Buy cryptoMarketsTradeFuturesStocksEarnInstitutionAI & More
Is the four-year crypto cycle dead?

Is the four-year crypto cycle dead?

KriptoworldKriptoworld2025/08/06 16:00
By:by kriptoworld

The debate is heating up. Listen, guys, you’ve heard it before, Bitcoin’s four-year cycle, that predictable rhythm that kept traders and investors dancing, trusting the beat of halvings to drop the price fireworks every few years.

But now? The whispers are turning into shouts. The big shots are saying, game over, the four-year cycle’s over.

Rally like clockwork

Bitcoin’s past trips around the sun after each halving, 2012, 2016, 2020, you know the drill, showed those classic bull runs in the next years. The market was buzzing, the peaks came just like clockwork.

But now? The scene is different. Jason Williams, author and crypto investor, throws down the gauntlet, saying the top 100 Bitcoin treasury companies hold nearly one million Bitcoin.

That’s why the 4-year cycle is over.

$BTC four-year cycle outlook

The correlation here is unreal

Bear market low to bull market top has lasted 1065 days in the past two cycles, with diminishing returns as highlighted by the fibs

Similarly, the bull market top to the bear market bottom has lasted 365 days… pic.twitter.com/bLPYm9iVJ9

— Harry Collins (@web3harry_) August 7, 2025

Matthew Hougan, the big brain at Bitwise Asset Management, nods to that thought. In CNBC, he said out loud what a lot were whispering.

“I think the 4-year cycle is over. Wait until 2026 to confirm, but it’s looking done.”

Institutional money

What happened? Institutional money flooded in, changing the game entirely, that’s what happened. Pierre Rochard, CEO of The Bitcoin Bond Company, breaks it down.

“95% of Bitcoin’s mined, supply comes mostly from buying out the old-timers. The halvings? Just background noise now. Demand? It’s retail, wealth platforms, treasury wallets.”

The four-year cycle? Useful reference, sure, but no longer the boss of the market. Crypto’s maturing into something bigger than just halving clocks.

Macro factors, regulatory shifts, institutional inflows, ETF rollouts, they’re all pulling strings now, says Martin Burgherr of Sygnum Bank.

The cycle’s just one piece of the puzzle, not the whole script.

Minority report

But as always, not everyone agrees. Crypto analyst “CRYPTO₿IRB ” pushes back hard, telling his massive audience that saying the four-year cycle’s dead is just plain wrong.

Saying 4-year cycle is gone is wrong IMO.

ETFs strengthened crypto 4-year cycles.

Just think about it:

Tradfi is 4-year cycles (presidential).

ETFs increase crypto-tradfi correlation.

(see long term correlation coefficient trend).

So merging crypto with tradfi through ETFs… pic.twitter.com/xDuyGO2BYZ

— CRYPTO₿IRB (@crypto_birb) August 10, 2025

The math’s baked in, halving cycles are immutable. ETFs? They actually tie crypto tighter to traditional finance’s four-year presidential rhythms, strengthening the cycle’s beat, not killing it.

Seamus Rocca, Xapo Bank CEO, chimes in, warning that risks of a prolonged bear market are still real. Institutions coming in doesn’t mean the cycled nature of Bitcoin is history. Nah, he says the four-year cycle’s still kicking strong.

Either way, the four-year cycle feels like that old faithful friend whose grip is loosening, but not quite ready to leave the party.

The narrative’s shifting, the market’s maturing, but the rhythm? It might just be playing a new tune alongside the old.

Is the four-year crypto cycle dead? image 0 Is the four-year crypto cycle dead? image 1
Written by András Mészáros
Cryptocurrency and Web3 expert, founder of Kriptoworld
LinkedIn | X (Twitter) | More articles

With years of experience covering the blockchain space, András delivers insightful reporting on DeFi, tokenization, altcoins, and crypto regulations shaping the digital economy.

0
0

Disclaimer: The content of this article solely reflects the author's opinion and does not represent the platform in any capacity. This article is not intended to serve as a reference for making investment decisions.

Understand the market, then trade.
Bitget offers one-stop trading for cryptocurrencies, stocks, and gold.
Trade now!

You may also like

How much CPO demand will Nvidia Rubin Ultra generate? Bernstein: Optical value per Pod will increase fivefold

Bernstein believes that the co-packaged optics (CPO) and fiber demand driven by Nvidia's Rubin Ultra architecture will surge significantly, with the optical content per Pod rising from $1 million to $5.4 million. This will propel the size of Nvidia's optical ecosystem market to $46.8 billion by 2028 (a 91% annual increase). Although the industry faces supply bottlenecks with InP substrates, the outlook remains positive. The institution reiterates its “outperform” rating for Lumentum, Coherent, and Ciena.

华尔街见闻•2026/11/11 08:47
How much CPO demand will Nvidia Rubin Ultra generate? Bernstein: Optical value per Pod will increase fivefold

UBS Q3 implements a two-way strategy with gold options, heavily invests in technology stocks, and builds positions in SK Hynix (SKHY.US)

UBS Group (UBS.US) has submitted its Q3 holdings report (13F) as of September 30, 2026.

智通财经•2026/11/11 08:22
UBS Q3 implements a two-way strategy with gold options, heavily invests in technology stocks, and builds positions in SK Hynix (SKHY.US)

SpaceX (SPCX.US) reportedly attempts “de-Nvidiaization” at the rack level: developing Kessel cabinets to bypass L6 compute boards, purchasing only chips

SemiAnalysis: SpaceX has developed its own Kessel cabinet, bypassing Nvidia's L6 cards to provide more options for manufacturing its own hardware.

智通财经•2026/11/11 08:20
SpaceX (SPCX.US) reportedly attempts “de-Nvidiaization” at the rack level: developing Kessel cabinets to bypass L6 compute boards, purchasing only chips

$3.7 billion “data center power equipment prepayments” abandoned! What did "the most active buyer of gas turbines", SoftBank, see?

In the second quarter of fiscal year 2026, SoftBank reported a net loss of $7.1 billion, primarily due to a $3.7 billion impairment charge from a $9.5 billion advance payment for power generation equipment for US data centers—of which about $2.9 billion was non-refundable and effectively lost. The CFO admitted that SoftBank placed orders before the project plan was finalized, and is now conducting a comprehensive review of its procurement strategy. "The most aggressive purchaser of gas turbines has now written off the deposit in this way."

华尔街见闻•2026/11/11 08:19