Bitcoin is being dominated by three “unexciting” institutional factors that are overshadowing the halving’s supply disruption.

Bitcoin’s four-year cycle used to serve as a safety net. Even those who professed skepticism still engaged in trading based on it.

The halving would reduce new supply, the market would spend months acting as if nothing had occurred, then liquidity would appear, leverage would follow, retail would remember its credentials, and the chart would embark on a new surge towards a fresh all-time high.

21Shares presents the “old playbook” in straightforward numbers: 2012’s surge from approximately $12 to $1,150 and an 85% pullback, 2016’s rise from around $650 to $20,000 and an 80% retracement, and 2020’s ascent from roughly $8,700 to $69,000 and a 75% decline.

Thus, when the “cycle is dead” narrative gained traction in late 2025, it resonated because it was not solely emerging from the crypto retail landscape. It spread through allocator channels: Bitwise suggesting 2026 might disrupt the pattern, Grayscale embracing a new “institutional era,” and 21Shares directly questioning whether the four-year cadence still applies.

The key takeaway from the hot takes is straightforward: the halving remains significant and will persist as a relentless, unwavering force, yet it no longer holds absolute authority over Bitcoin’s schedule.

This doesn’t imply the end of cycles. It simply indicates that the cycle now has various clocks on the wall, each ticking at a different pace.

Related Reading

ETFs, RWAs, stablecoins ended traditional four-year cycle and alt seasons

The transition of ownership from retail speculators to long-term institutional allocators signifies “The Great Crypto Rotation.”

Sep 25, 2025 · Gino Matos

The old cycle was a calendar, and a way to be lazy

The halving cycle was never enchanted; it functioned simply because it combined three concepts into one tidy date: new supply diminished, narratives found a foundation, and positioning had a common focal point. The calendar solved the coordination challenge for you.

You didn’t require an intricate model of liquidity, cross-asset infrastructure, or knowledge of who the marginal buyer was. You could simply point to a quadrennial mark and say: “Give it time.”

This is also why it turned into a trap. The clearer the script, the more it encouraged a singular-trade perspective: front-run the halving, wait for the surge, sell at the peak, buy during the winter. When this strategy ceased to yield a clear, cinematic payoff on schedule, the response was binary: either the cycle still governs everything, or it’s over.

Both sides seem to overlook what has genuinely occurred in Bitcoin’s market structure.

The investor base is more diverse, the access pathways are more recognizable, and the primary venues for price discovery now resemble mainstream risk markets significantly. State Street’s approach to institutional demand heavily leans on this: we have regulated ETP access and a “familiar vehicle” effect on the market, with Bitcoin still at the center of gravity by market capitalization.

And once the factors driving the market change, the timeline shifts as well. Not because the halving ceased to function, but because it’s now contending with influences that can overshadow it for extended periods.

The policy clock and the ETF clock now set the tempo

To gain a clearer understanding of why the old cycle is now largely irrelevant, we must begin with the least “crypto” aspect of the narrative: the price of money.

On Dec. 10, 2025, the Fed lowered the target range for the federal funds rate by 25 bps to 3.50%–3.75%. A few weeks later, Reuters reported Fed Governor Stephen Miran advocating for more aggressive cuts in 2026, including discussions of 150 bps throughout the year. Simultaneously, China’s central bank discussed reducing the RRR and interest rates in 2026 to maintain ample liquidity.

This indicates that when global financing conditions tighten or loosen, it alters the set of buyers who can and wish to hold volatile assets. That establishes the baseline temperature for everything else.
Now, add spot Bitcoin ETFs into the mix, where the four-year story begins to appear overly simplistic.

ETFs undoubtedly introduced a new set of buyers into the market, but more crucially, they reshaped demand dynamics. In the ETF structure, buying pressure manifests as creations, while selling pressure appears as redemptions.

These flows can be influenced by factors unrelated to the halving: portfolio adjustments, risk budgets, cross-asset declines, tax considerations, advisory platform approvals, and the gradual process of distribution.

This last aspect is more significant than many acknowledge, as it tends to be mundane yet decisive. Bank of America is enhancing advisors’ capacity to recommend crypto ETPs starting Jan. 5, 2026, which represents the kind of gatekeeping measure that changes who can buy, how they buy, and under what compliance requirements.

This is why the most compelling version of the “cycle is dead” argument is also the most restricted. It doesn’t assert that the halving has no impact, merely that it no longer solely dictates the tempo.

Related Reading

Bank of America is finally recommending Bitcoin, but the “modest” allocation is the bigger shock

A $4.6T wealth machine is transforming “execution only” into genuine advice, starting with a small-sounding allocation.

Jan 6, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Bitwise’s perspective and broader outlook for 2026 rely on that intuition: macro factors are important, access matters, and the market’s behavior can appear different once the marginal buyer originates from traditional channels instead of native crypto pathways. 21Shares makes a similar general point in its cycle-focused analyses and its Market Outlook 2026, which views institutional integration as a crucial factor in how crypto will trade moving forward.

Grayscale goes even further, framing 2026 around deeper integration with the US market structure and regulation, which essentially means: this market now operates closer to the daily machinery of the financial system.

The most straightforward way to update the cycle concept is to regard it as a set of dials that shift weekly.

One dial is the policy trajectory: not just whether rates are rising or falling, but whether financial conditions are loosening or tightening at the margin, and whether that narrative is speeding up or slowing down. Another is the ETF flow regime, as creations and redemptions provide a direct gauge of how demand is actually entering or exiting through the dominant new structure.

A third is distribution, signifying who is permitted to buy in substantial amounts and under what constraints. When a significant advisory channel, brokerage platform, or model-portfolio gatekeeper opens access, the buyer base gradually expands in a mechanical way that can be more impactful than a one-day surge of enthusiasm, and when access is restricted, the funnel narrows just as mechanically.

Two additional dials capture the market’s internal condition. Volatility tone indicates whether price is being determined by calm two-way trades or by stress, with rapid sell-offs and air pockets typically resulting from forced risk reduction.

The cleanliness of market positioning reveals whether leverage is being added gradually or stacked in a manner that renders the market fragile. A market can appear stable based solely on spot price while becoming dangerously crowded underneath, or it can seem chaotic while leverage is quietly being recalibrated and risk is being mitigated.

Collectively, these checks don’t dismiss the halving. They simply position it appropriately as a structural backdrop, while the timing and nature of significant movements are increasingly dictated by liquidity, flow dynamics, and the extent of risk concentration in the same direction.

Derivatives turned the climax into a risk-transfer market

The third clock is the one most cycle discussions overlook because it’s more challenging to articulate: derivatives.
In the previous retail-dominated boom-bust model, leverage acted like a party that spiraled out of control at the end.

In a market with greater institutional involvement, derivatives are less a side wager and more a fundamental venue for risk transfer. This alters where stress manifests and when it gets resolved.

Glassnode’s Week On-Chain for early January 2026 characterizes the market as having undergone a year-end reset, with profit-taking subsiding and key cost-basis levels becoming the benchmarks to monitor for validating a more robust upswing.

This presents a markedly different ambiance compared to the classic cycle climax, where the market is typically busy devising new justifications for vertical price movements.

Derivatives don’t eliminate these manias, that’s for certain. However, they significantly alter the manner in which they initiate, evolve, and conclude.

Options enable large holders to express views with a defined downside. Futures facilitate hedging that can dampen spot selling. Liquidation cascades still occur, but they can happen earlier in the narrative, clearing positioning before the market reaches the blow-off top phase. The outcome is a path that can resemble a series of risk cleanups punctuated by bursts of velocity.

This is also where the public divergence among major financial voices becomes useful instead of perplexing.

On one side, you have Bitwise’s position of “breaking the four-year pattern” in late 2025, while on the other, Fidelity’s Jurrien Timmer contends that the cycle still appears intact, even if 2026 might be a “year off” according to his view.

This divide doesn’t imply that one side is correct while the other is misinformed. It’s reasonable to assert that the old pattern is no longer the only applicable model, and valid frameworks can disagree because the inputs are richer and now encompass policy, flows, positioning, and market structure.

So what does a nuanced future of the cycle truly resemble?

Envision it as three lanes, none of which are dramatic enough for a meme, yet all of them practical enough to trade and invest around:

1. Cycle extension: the halving still holds significance, but the peak timing shifts later as liquidity and distribution take longer to navigate through traditional channels.
2. Range then grind: Bitcoin spends extended periods digesting supply and positioning, then moves when flows and policy cease to conflict.
3. Macro slap: policy and cross-asset stress take precedence for a while, and the halving becomes trivial in light of redemptions and de-risking.

<pIf there’s a clear takeaway to be gleaned from this, it’s this: declaring the four-year cycle dead is a shortcut that sounds intelligent but conveys little.

Related Reading

Bitcoin’s 4-year cycle is dead: Are market makers in denial?

Every four years used to be significant. Now, it’s the next $500 million ETF inflow that determines whether Bitcoin ascends or descends.

Nov 5, 2025 · Andjela Radmilac

The more sensible and frankly only rational approach to this is to assert that Bitcoin now has multiple calendars, and the winners in 2026 won’t be those who memorize a single date.

They’ll be the individuals who can interpret the signals: the cost of money, the direction of ETF flows, and the segments of the derivatives market where risk accumulates quietly and then unravels loudly.

The post Bitcoin is being hijacked by three “boring” institutional dials that are overpowering the halving’s supply shock appeared first on CryptoSlate.