A recent institutional research report has sparked discussions in the crypto community, with the core point highlighting an often-overlooked phenomenon: the end of Bitcoin's classic four-year cycle is imminent. This is not just a simple bullish signal but a systemic turning point.

Why is that? Over the past decade, Bitcoin's price fluctuations have followed a relatively regular four-year cycle. But once this cycle fails, the market will face a new set of rules—either an exponential rise or a deep correction. There is no moderate middle ground between the two.

The macro environment warrants even greater vigilance. Global government debt pressures continue to rise, and traditional fiat currencies face depreciation expectations, which is a deep driver behind increased interest in crypto assets. From this perspective, Bitcoin is not just an investment asset but also a hedge tool. This shift in positioning is changing the composition of market participants.

Regulatory policies in 2025 are likely to advance significantly, which is a consensus view. On the surface, this appears to be positive news, but in reality, clearer rules mean a reshuffling of the game dynamics. Retail investors' participation will be squeezed, and institutional share will further increase. Securing chips before this transition completes will have completely different costs and opportunities compared to entering afterward.

Here's an interesting comparison. Some miners and long-term holders exited last year under bear market pressure, missing the subsequent rebound. Their current feeling is: they thought they were avoiding risk, but in fact, they avoided the entire cycle opportunity. Differences in cognition often mark the dividing line of wealth.

From a technical perspective, Bitcoin breaking through previous highs is just the beginning. Expectations are that there could be a stronger rally in the first half of the year, but the most dangerous point is often at the peak. When everyone is celebrating, it might be a sign of a shakeout. The current fear? It should instead be transformed into action—this time window is narrowing.

The underlying logic is clear: either position now to build a spot position, or wait until the rules are fully established, only to participate at a higher cost. Which is more expensive—time cost or opportunity cost?