2026-01-02 21:23:43

The conventional 4-year crypto market cycle narrative deserves closer scrutiny in today's landscape. Yes, the data points to cyclical patterns—but here's the thing: crypto's been around for 16-17 years, and for most of that journey, it operated as a niche asset class. That context matters.

What's shifted fundamentally? Institutional adoption has accelerated dramatically, and policy frameworks are evolving in ways that reshape market dynamics. Major institutions now hold significant crypto positions. Regulatory clarity is improving across jurisdictions. These aren't marginal changes—they're structural.

When you factor in institutional money flows and changing policy environments, can the old 4-year playbook still hold? The jury's out. The market structure today bears little resemblance to the fragmented, retail-dominated cycles of the past. Whether historical patterns apply to this new regime is exactly the question worth asking.

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.

17 Likes

Reward
17
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

DAOdreamer

· 01-03 18:12

The four-year cycle indeed needs to be re-examined; institutional entry has changed the entire game rules.

View OriginalReply0

RugPullSurvivor

· 01-03 16:17

That's right, institutional entry has indeed changed the game, but I still believe history will repeat itself. Really, the four-year cycle is outdated; this market is completely different from five years ago. Regulatory clarity is a good thing, but don't be too naive; policy directions can change at any time. I just want to know when the big institutional players will collectively run away again...

View OriginalReply0

MoodFollowsPrice

· 01-02 21:53

The four-year cycle theory indeed needs to be re-evaluated; institutional entry has changed the game rules.

View OriginalReply0

WalletsWatcher

· 01-02 21:48

To be honest, the 4-year cycle theory should have been updated long ago; institutional entry has changed the entire game rules.

View OriginalReply0

SocialAnxietyStaker

· 01-02 21:45

Well said. The 4-year cycle should have been thrown into the trash long ago. Now the way institutions enter the market has completely changed. Institutional entry indeed changes the game rules, but I think policy is still the biggest variable. Frankly, it all depends on each country's attitude. Historical data can only be used as a reference. The scale of this game is different now. Can old experiences be applied? I have my doubts. A real structural change has arrived. The era of retail investors is over. This time, it's different. Wait, has this wave of regulation really improved? It still seems like everyone is saying different things.

View OriginalReply0

HodlOrRegret

· 01-02 21:32

Well said. The idea of a 4-year cycle definitely needs to be re-examined. Institutional entry has changed the game rules, and it's no small matter; the entire market structure has shifted. The era of retail investors trading chaotically is long gone. But I still believe history repeats itself, just in different forms. Does having more institutional money necessarily mean stability? Not necessarily.

View OriginalReply0