Has the four-year cycle pattern of Bitcoin really been broken? This is a question worth pondering. Looking at past data, halving cycles have indeed influenced market trends, but market variables are increasing—institutional entry, policy fluctuations, macroeconomic shocks—all are changing the traditional price rhythm. Perhaps it's not that the cycle has disappeared, but that more complex factors have been overlaid, making the pattern less clear.
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.
9 Likes
Reward
9
4
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
ForkTrooper
· 10h ago
The cycle hasn't been broken; it's just too noisy to tell the difference.
View OriginalReply0
FunGibleTom
· 10h ago
The cycle hasn't been broken; it's just that there's too much noise, and the signals are drowned out by the buying and selling activities of institutions.
View OriginalReply0
LiquiditySurfer
· 10h ago
The cycle hasn't been broken; it's just that the signal-to-noise ratio has been maximized. Surfing is indeed more difficult now, and this wave of institutional entry has changed the entire game of liquidity depth.
View OriginalReply0
FalseProfitProphet
· 10h ago
It's not about breaking through; it's that the signal has been drowned out by noise. After these institutional players arrived, they stopped playing by the old rules.
Has the four-year cycle pattern of Bitcoin really been broken? This is a question worth pondering. Looking at past data, halving cycles have indeed influenced market trends, but market variables are increasing—institutional entry, policy fluctuations, macroeconomic shocks—all are changing the traditional price rhythm. Perhaps it's not that the cycle has disappeared, but that more complex factors have been overlaid, making the pattern less clear.