Narrative is dead, faith collapses? Seven veteran industry insiders fiercely debate the "Four-Year Cycle Theory"

Author: Dingdang; Editor: Hao Fangzhou

Produced by: Odaily Planet Daily

In the eighteen years since the birth of Bitcoin, the “four-year cycle” theory has almost become the foundational belief of the cryptocurrency market. Bitcoin halving, supply contraction, price increases, and altcoin seasons have not only explained multiple bull and bear market transitions in history but also profoundly influenced investors’ position management, project fundraising rhythms, and even the industry’s understanding of “time.”

However, after the April 2024 halving, Bitcoin only rose from $60,000 to a historical high of $126,000, with a much lower increase than previous cycles. Altcoins are also weak, and macro liquidity and policy variables have become more sensitive market anchors. Especially after the large-scale entry of spot ETFs, institutional funds, and traditional financial instruments, one question has been repeatedly discussed:

Does the four-year cycle in the crypto market still exist?

To explore this, we invited seven seasoned professionals in the crypto field for a dialogue spanning optimism and caution, bull and bear market predictions. They are:

• Jason｜Founder of NDV Fund:

Previously responsible for Chinese investments at Alibaba founder Joe Tsai’s family office, involved in both primary and secondary markets. His investment style combines the rigor of primary market analysis with the liquidity focus of secondary markets. His first fund achieved approximately 275% absolute return in 23 months, has fully exited, and as an open-ended fund, all investors have realized profits.

• Ye Su｜Founding Partner of ArkStream Capital:

Has invested in over a hundred companies and projects over the past eight years, including Aave, Filecoin, Ethena, and others, aligning with institutional investors.

• Jack Yi｜Founder of Liquid Capital:

Focuses on real trading positions and strategies, emphasizing the allocation value of mainstream assets, stablecoins, and exchange ecosystems across different cycle stages.

• James｜Founder of DFG:

Manages over $1 billion in assets, early investor in LedgerX, Ledger, Coinlist, Circle, and supporter of protocols like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, Uniswap.

• Joanna Liang｜Founding Partner of Jsquare Fund:

Post-90s entrepreneur and investor, managing over $200 million, including a $50 million LP fund; has invested in star projects like Pudgy Penguins, Circle, Amber Group, Render Network.

• Bruce｜Founder of MaiTong MSX:

With a mining background, assesses long-term profitability and risk boundaries of the crypto market based on mining costs, cycle returns, and industry maturity.

• CryptoPainter｜Crypto Data Analyst:

Uses on-chain data and technical indicators, combined with historical cycle features, to quantitatively judge market phases and turning points.

I. What exactly is the “four-year cycle” we discuss?

Before discussing whether the cycle has “failed,” we need to clarify a premise:

What exactly do we mean by the “four-year cycle”?

According to the consensus among interviewees, the traditional four-year cycle is mainly driven by Bitcoin’s approximately four-year halving of block rewards. Halving means reduced new supply, changes in miner behavior, and long-term support for the price center—this is the core, mathematically grounded part of the “four-year cycle” narrative.

However, some guests incorporate crypto cycles into a broader financial framework. Jason, founder of NDV, believes that the four-year cycle is actually a dual-driven model of political cycle + liquidity cycle, not just a simple halving code pattern. The “four years” closely coincides with U.S. election cycles and the rhythm of global central banks’ liquidity releases. Previously, the focus was solely on halving, considered the only variable, because each cycle saw a large increase in new Bitcoin issuance. But now, with the approval of spot ETFs, Bitcoin has entered the macro asset sequence. The expansion of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet and global M2 growth are the real core factors defining the cycle. Therefore, in his view, the four-year cycle is essentially a fiat currency liquidity cycle. From a simple mathematical perspective, the supply side impact in this cycle (2024–2028) will only add 600,000 BTC, which is tiny compared to the approximately 19 million issued, and the less than $60 billion new selling pressure can be easily absorbed by Wall Street.

Is it a pattern, or a self-fulfilling narrative?

When a concept is repeatedly validated and widely propagated, it tends to evolve from a “pattern” into a “consensus,” and further into a narrative. And narratives, in turn, influence market behavior. Therefore, an unavoidable question is: Is the four-year cycle an objective economic law, or a market narrative that is believed collectively and thus self-fulfilling?

Regarding the causes of the four-year cycle, the guests generally agree that it is the result of the combined effect of an objective mechanism and market narrative, but with different dominant forces at different stages.

As CryptoPainter said, the four-year cycle was indeed significant in the early days when miners produced more. But this supply-demand cycle has a clear marginal effect: theoretically, with each halving, the impact of supply-demand changes diminishes, and the percentage increase in each bull market also logarithmically decreases. It can be guessed that the next halving cycle will have a smaller price impact. Jason also pointed out that as the market size grows, the influence of purely supply-side changes diminishes. Today’s cycle is more driven by self-fulfilling liquidity.

Joanna Liang from Jsquare Fund added from a market behavior perspective that the four-year cycle has a significant “self-fulfilling” feature. As institutional and retail participation structures change, the relative importance of macro policies, regulatory environment, liquidity conditions, and halving events are re-ordered each cycle. In this dynamic game, the four-year cycle is no longer an “iron law,” but just one of many influencing factors. She believes that because fundamentals are constantly evolving, markets breaking the four-year pattern or even sprinting toward a “super cycle” is not impossible.

Overall, the consensus among guests is: The four-year cycle initially had a solid supply-demand basis, but as miners’ influence wanes and Bitcoin gradually shifts toward an asset allocation attribute, the cycle is transitioning from a strong mechanistic driver to a result of combined narratives, behaviors, and macro factors. The current cycle may have shifted from a “hard constraint” to a “soft expectation.”

II. Is the smaller price increase in this cycle a natural decline of the cycle, or overshadowed by ETF and institutional forces?

Almost all guests agree that this is a natural result of diminishing marginal effects, not a sudden failure of the cycle. Any growth market will experience a logarithmic decrease in multiples. As Bitcoin’s market cap expands, each new “multiple” requires exponential capital inflow, so the declining return rate is a natural law.

From this perspective, “not rising as much as before” is actually consistent with long-term logic.

But deeper changes come from the market structure itself.

Joanna Liang believes that the biggest difference in this cycle is the early entry of spot ETFs and institutional funds. In the previous cycle, Bitcoin’s all-time high was mainly driven by retail marginal liquidity; in this cycle, over $50 billion in ETF funds have continuously flowed in before and after the halving, absorbing supply shocks before they fully materialize. This has smoothed out the price increase over a longer time frame, no longer showing a parabolic explosion after halving.

Jack Yi also added from the perspective of market cap and volatility that as Bitcoin reaches the trillion-dollar level, the decline in volatility is an inevitable result of becoming a mainstream asset. When market cap was smaller, inflows could cause exponential rises; now, even doubling requires enormous additional funds.

James from DFG sees halving as a “still existing but less important variable.” He believes that in the future, halving will be more like a secondary catalyst, with the real trend determined by institutional fund flows, RWA (real-world assets) adoption, and macro liquidity conditions.

However, Bruce from MaiTong MSX disagrees somewhat. He believes halving increases Bitcoin’s production cost, and costs will ultimately impose a long-term price constraint. Even as the industry matures and returns decline overall, halving will still push costs upward, positively influencing prices, just not with dramatic volatility.

In summary, the guests do not think that “smaller gains” are caused by a single factor. A more reasonable explanation is: The marginal impact of halving is decreasing, while ETF and institutional funds are changing the rhythm and shape of price formation. This is not a failure of halving but a market no longer solely driven by halving events.

III. What stage are we in now?

If earlier discussions focused on whether the “cycle structure” still holds, this question is more practical: Where are we now—bull market, bear market, or some transitional phase not yet clearly named?

This is where the guests’ opinions diverge most.

Bruce from MSX is quite pessimistic, believing we are in the early stage of a typical bear market, and the end of the bull market has not been recognized by most participants. His basis is the cost and return structure. In the last cycle, Bitcoin’s mining cost was about $20,000, with a peak price of $69,000, giving miners nearly 70% profit margin. In this cycle, post-halving mining costs are close to $70,000, and even at the $126,000 high, profit margins are just over 40%. Bruce sees that, as a 20-year-old industry, declining returns per cycle are normal. Unlike 2020–2021, this cycle has seen large amounts of new capital flowing into AI assets instead of crypto. At least in North America, the most active risk appetite funds are still concentrated in U.S. stocks’ AI sector.

CryptoPainter’s judgment leans toward technical and data analysis. He believes the market has not yet entered a true cyclical bear market but is in a technical bear phase—marked by breaking below the MA50 on the weekly chart. Past bull markets also experienced technical bear phases late, but that did not mean the cycle ended immediately. A true cyclical bear often requires a macroeconomic recession for confirmation. He describes the current stage as a “probationary state”: technical structures have weakened, but macro conditions have not yet given a final verdict. He notes that the total supply of stablecoins is still growing; only when stablecoins stop growing for over two months will a bear market be confirmed.

In contrast, many guests lean toward the view that: The cycle has already failed, and we are in the late bull market correction, likely entering a sideways or slow bull phase. Jason and Ye Su base their judgment on global macro liquidity. They see the U.S. as having few options but to use monetary easing to delay debt pressures. The rate cut cycle has just begun, and the liquidity “tap” is still open. As long as global M2 expands, crypto assets—most sensitive to liquidity—will continue upward. The real bear signal would be when central banks start tightening liquidity substantially or the real economy plunges into recession, causing liquidity to dry up. Currently, these indicators show no abnormality; instead, liquidity seems to be building up. From market leverage, if open interest relative to market cap is too high, it signals short-term adjustments but not a bear market.

Jack Yi also believes that Wall Street and institutions are reconstructing the financial system based on blockchain, with increasingly stable chip structures, no longer prone to wild swings like early retail-driven markets. With the Fed’s leadership change, the start of rate cuts, and the most friendly crypto policies ever, current volatility is expected to be wide-ranging but ultimately a long-term bull.

The divergence itself may be the most genuine feature of this stage. The opinions of our guests form a small but sufficiently realistic sample: some have confirmed a bear market, some are waiting for data to give the final answer, but most believe the four-year cycle theory has basically 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 reevaluated, while macro liquidity, market structure, and asset attributes are becoming more critical variables.

IV. The core driver of eternal bull markets: from sentiment-driven to structural-driven

If the “four-year cycle” is weakening and the future crypto market no longer exhibits clear bull-bear switches but instead enters a long-term sideways upward trend with significant compression of bear markets, where does the core support for this structure come from?

Jason believes it is the systemic decline of fiat currency confidence and the normalization of institutional allocation. As Bitcoin is increasingly regarded as “digital gold” and incorporated into the balance sheets of sovereign states, pension funds, and hedge funds, its upward logic no longer depends on single-cycle events but resembles gold as a “long-term asset against fiat devaluation.” The price will spiral upward. He emphasizes the importance of stablecoins. In his view, compared to Bitcoin, stablecoins have a larger potential user base and a more direct path into real economy activities. From payments and settlements to cross-border capital flows, stablecoins are becoming the “interface layer” of new financial infrastructure. This means future growth in crypto is not solely driven by speculation but will gradually embed into real financial and commercial activities.

Joanna Liang’s view echoes this. She believes that the key variable for a slow bull is continued institutional adoption—whether through spot ETFs or RWA tokenization—as long as institutional allocation persists, the market will show a “compound interest” upward trend—volatility smoothed out, but the trend intact.

CryptoPainter’s perspective is more direct. He points out that the BTCUSD trading pair’s right side is USD, so as long as global liquidity remains loose and the dollar is in a weak cycle, asset prices will not enter a deep bear but will drift upward slowly through technical bear phases, similar to gold’s “long-term sideways - surge - long-term sideways” pattern.

Of course, not everyone agrees with the “slow bull” narrative.

Bruce’s outlook is quite pessimistic. He believes that the global economic structural problems remain unresolved: worsening employment, youth unemployment, wealth concentration, and ongoing geopolitical risks. Under such circumstances, a serious economic crisis in 2026–2027 is not unlikely. If macro systemic risks erupt, crypto assets will also struggle to escape unscathed.

To some extent, the slow bull is not a consensus but a conditional judgment based on continued liquidity.

V. Is there still a traditional “altcoin season”?

“Altcoin season” is almost an inseparable part of the four-year cycle narrative. But in this cycle, its absence has become one of the most discussed phenomena.

Altcoins performed poorly in this cycle for multiple reasons. Joanna pointed out that first, Bitcoin’s rising dominance created a “risk asset safe haven” pattern, making institutional funds prefer blue-chip assets. Second, regulatory frameworks have matured, favoring long-term adoption of altcoins with clear utility and compliance. Third, this cycle lacked killer applications and clear narratives like DeFi and NFTs from the previous cycle.

The guests also agree that there may be a new altcoin season, but it will be more selective, focusing only on tokens with real use cases and revenue potential.

CryptoPainter elaborates further. He believes that the traditional concept of an altcoin season is no longer possible because the total number of altcoins has reached an unprecedented high. Even if macro liquidity flows in, with many altcoins, it’s impossible for a broad rally. Therefore, even if an altcoin season occurs, it will be very localized, following sector narratives. Currently, focusing on individual altcoins is less meaningful; attention should be on sectors and themes.

Ye Su uses the analogy of U.S. stocks: future altcoin performance will resemble M7—long-term outperformers like blue-chip altcoins, with small-cap altcoins occasionally exploding but with weak sustainability.

Ultimately, the market structure has changed. It used to be driven by retail attention economy; now it is driven by institutional reporting economy.

VI. Positioning and allocation

In such a blurred cycle structure and fractured narrative market, we also asked several guests about their actual holdings.

A striking fact is: most respondents have already largely exited altcoins, often holding only half positions.

Jason’s strategy leans toward “defensive + long-term.” He prefers to use gold instead of USD as cash management to hedge fiat risk. For digital assets, most of his holdings are in BTC and ETH, with caution on ETH. They favor high-certainty assets, i.e., hard currencies (BTC) and exchange stocks (Upbit).

CryptoPainter strictly follows the rule that cash should not be less than 50%. His core holdings are BTC and ETH, with altcoins below 10%. He has exited all gold positions above $3,500 and has no plans to re-enter gold. He also holds some short positions with very low leverage on high-valued AI stocks in the U.S. stock market.

Jack Yi has a relatively high risk appetite, nearly fully invested, but with a structured approach: core in ETH, with stablecoin logic (WLFI), supplemented by large-cap assets like BTC, BCH, BNB. His logic is not about cycle betting but long-term bets on public chains, stablecoins, and exchanges.

In stark contrast, Bruce has almost completely cleared his crypto positions, including selling BTC near $110,000. He believes he might buy back below $70,000 in the next two years. His portfolio now mainly consists of defensive or cyclical stocks in the U.S., and he plans to liquidate most of his U.S. stocks before next year’s World Cup.

VII. Is now a good time to buy the dip?

This is the most operational question. Bruce is quite pessimistic, believing we are far from the bottom. The real bottom appears when “nobody dares to buy the dip anymore.”

Cautious CryptoPainter also thinks that the ideal price for bottom-fishing or starting dollar-cost averaging is below $60,000. The logic is simple: buy gradually after halving, a strategy proven successful in every bull cycle. Clearly, this target won’t be reached in the short term. His view is that after 1–2 months of wide-range consolidation, Bitcoin might test above $100,000 again next year, but probably won’t set new highs. Once macro monetary policies lose their stimulus and market liquidity and narratives dry up, the market will officially enter a cyclical bear phase, and investors should patiently wait for monetary policy to loosen again and cut rates aggressively.

Most other guests adopt a more neutral stance. They believe now may not be the “aggressive bottom-fishing” moment, but a window for gradually building positions and scaling in. The consensus is: do not leverage, avoid frequent trading, and discipline is more important than judgment.