A prominent digital asset ETF manager, overseeing substantial capital in the crypto space, has challenged the long-standing narrative about Bitcoin's predictable 4-year boom-bust cycles.



The conventional wisdom suggested that Bitcoin follows a rigid cyclical pattern tied to halving events, but this manager argues that framework is becoming obsolete. The reasoning: market dynamics have fundamentally shifted as institutional adoption deepens, regulatory clarity improves, and liquidity matures.

"The old cycle theory doesn't capture what's happening now," the perspective suggests. Rather than rigid periodicity, Bitcoin's price action increasingly reflects macro conditions, policy shifts, and institutional positioning—creating a more complex landscape than the simple halving-driven narrative.

What's particularly notable is the confidence expressed about an emerging bull market phase. This isn't casual optimism; it comes from someone whose firm manages over $15 billion in digital asset products and tracks market microstructure closely.

Whether the traditional cycle is truly dead or merely evolving remains a debate, but one thing's clear: the way institutions are betting on Bitcoin's next leg suggests they believe the old playbook needs rewriting.
BTC-2,33%
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 8
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
PoolJumpervip
· 01-04 17:02
Huh? The four-year cycle is dead? So my holding strategy over the past few years would be pointless.
View OriginalReply0
ZkSnarkervip
· 01-04 15:32
ngl, the "cycles are dead" take is just cope for when your models don't predict price action anymore. institutions didn't kill the cycle, they just got better at front-running it.
Reply0
SchrodingersFOMOvip
· 01-03 21:11
Ha, another big shot says the four-year cycle is dead. I just want to ask if this time it's really dead or just a new excuse to harvest the leeks again.
View OriginalReply0
SigmaValidatorvip
· 01-03 13:50
Is the four-year cycle dead? I don't think so. When institutions want to accumulate, they just throw out a new theory.
View OriginalReply0
AltcoinTherapistvip
· 01-03 13:48
I think this set of rhetoric sounds quite comfortable. The institutions are finally beginning to admit that the "4-year cycle theory" is a bit outdated. But on the other hand, a $1.5 billion fund, to put it nicely, is "insight," and to be blunt, it's just hyping up their own positions...
View OriginalReply0
LightningWalletvip
· 01-03 13:39
Hey, wait a minute. If institutions managing 15 billion USD are saying this, then the four-year cycle might really be written into history.
View OriginalReply0
CryptoNomicsvip
· 01-03 13:29
ngl, the correlation matrix between institutional inflows and cycle breakdowns is *statistically significant*—but everyone conflating macro factors with halving obsolescence is missing the endogenous liquidity dynamics entirely. regression analysis suggests institutional positioning ≠ cycle death, just phase transition. classic confusing causation with correlation, tbh
Reply0
PhantomMinervip
· 01-03 13:22
Haha, the guy with 15 billion says the 4-year cycle is dead, so are we common folks still copying homework?
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)