Has the four-year cycle of Bitcoin really become invalid? Market battles amid the ETF wave

Question

【Crypto World】Recently, discussions about Bitcoin cycles have become increasingly intense, with the focus on whether the “Four-Year Cycle Theory” we’ve used for many years still holds.

On one side are the optimistic voices: institutions are continuously entering the market through ETFs, US regulatory attitudes are noticeably relaxing, and global liquidity is still increasing. Under this new combination of strategies, some analysts believe that the upward trend after the halving can last until 2026, potentially extending or breaking the cycle.

On the other side are those who stick to the original logic, arguing that the market has entered a bear market and that traditional cycles are still valid. Both sides have their own data to support their claims, and no one is willing to concede.

The emergence of ETFs has indeed changed the game—massive institutional funds are pouring in, and the market dynamics dominated by retail investors have shifted. But does this mean the cycle is completely invalid, or just extended? The answer may depend on future market performance. In any case, understanding the logic behind these debates can help in formulating your own trading strategies.

consensus_failure · Accepted Answer

Is the cycle invalid or extended? Ultimately, it's all about the data. Whoever has stronger arguments, just listen to them.

Institutional participation has indeed changed, and the retail trading strategies might really be outdated.

Whether it can last until 2026, I’ll just wait and see the follow-up. Anyway, I’m still in.

The four-year cycle might have been a false demand from the start; people just want to find a reason for the ups and downs.

This wave of ETF truly changed the landscape, but saying it completely overturned everything might be too absolute.

Regulatory relaxation + institutional entry—if this combo punch is really so powerful, why are some still calling for a bear market?

I think the cycle itself hasn't failed; it’s just become more complex with too many variables.

Different factions can justify their data, which is ridiculous. In the end, it still comes down to what the order book says.

ForkTongue · Answer

The four-year cycle concept should have been changed a long time ago. After a large influx of institutional investors, the gameplay is completely different. Anyone still claiming that traditional cycles are effective is just dreaming.

liquidation_surfer · Answer

Institutions pouring money have changed the game, but I still believe the cycle isn't that easy to break. History will repeat itself, it's just the timetable that has changed.

Has the four-year cycle of Bitcoin really become invalid? Market battles amid the ETF wave

Trending Topics

DrHan2025YearEndOpenLetter

2025GateYearEndSummary

CryptoMarketPrediction

BitcoinGoldBattle

ETFLeveragedTokenTradingCarnival

Hot Gate Fun

@

恭喜发财

ikun

ikun

ANOM

anônimo

ANON

Anonymous

Tahun Baru

2026

Pin