Analysts remain divided on whether Bitcoin’s long-standing four-year cycle came to an end in 2025, as new structural forces continue to reshape the market. Institutional exchange-traded funds, shifting U.S. regulations, rising global liquidity, and changes in Federal Reserve leadership are increasingly cited as reasons the traditional cycle may no longer apply.
The four-year cycle has historically been linked to Bitcoin’s halving events, which reduce miner rewards and slow the pace of new supply entering the market. In past cycles, this supply shock triggered a familiar pattern: accumulation before the halving, a strong bull market peaking roughly 18 months later, followed by a sharp correction and a prolonged bear market.
Some analysts argue that recent price action still fits this historical framework. Bitcoin has fallen roughly 30% from its post-halving peak and has shown signs of entering a bearish phase, a move that mirrors previous cycles.
Arguments that the four-year cycle is breaking down
A growing group of market observers believes the cycle began to weaken in 2025. They point to sustained institutional demand through spot Bitcoin ETFs and corporate treasury allocations, which have helped absorb selling pressure and reduce volatility compared to earlier cycles.
According to this view, institutional inflows have softened the typical post-peak crash and altered market dynamics. While near-term consolidation is possible due to macroeconomic headwinds, proponents of this thesis expect the broader bull market to extend into 2026, supported by structural capital inflows and evolving investor behavior.
Several major firms have echoed this outlook, forecasting new all-time highs in 2026 and suggesting that the idea of a rigid four-year crypto cycle may no longer be relevant. The argument centers on rising macro demand, concerns over currency debasement, and a more supportive regulatory environment in the United States.
A number of prominent crypto executives and analysts also share the belief that Bitcoin’s market structure has fundamentally changed, making past cycle models less reliable.
The case for the cycle still being intact
Despite these views, other analysts maintain that the four-year cycle remains valid and that the market has already entered a bear phase. Some argue that Bitcoin was among the first major risk assets to price in a slowing global economy, which explains recent weakness.
Others suggest that even if the cycle appears different, it may simply be evolving rather than disappearing altogether. From this perspective, cycles do not necessarily end; they can stretch, flatten, or mature as markets grow larger and more complex.
Another factor weighing on prices may be trader psychology. Expectations that the traditional cycle would repeat could have encouraged early selling, reinforcing downward pressure. Long-time market participants have also pointed to lingering trauma from previous cycles, which may be influencing current behavior.
Several analysts emphasize that while altcoins have struggled and market enthusiasm has been muted, this does not automatically invalidate the cycle theory. Instead, it may reflect a market environment where capital is rotating into other asset classes, such as equities, artificial intelligence, or gold.
In the end, the debate highlights a broader question facing crypto investors: whether Bitcoin has outgrown its historical patterns or whether those patterns are simply adapting to a more institutional, macro-driven market.
