Ever since Bitcoin kicked off in 2009, it’s been on this cycle that repeats roughly every four years. We usually see a big bull run around the time of the halving, followed by a bear market that kicks in about 16 to 18 months later. The last halving happened in April 2024, so some folks are getting anxious that we might be nearing the peak of this uptrend, which could lead to a long bear market ahead.
But now, with the way Bitcoin is behaving, some major players in the investment scene believe that it’s not just about the halving anymore. They think economic and monetary policies from around the globe have taken the spotlight. For example, Arthur Hayes, who’s the chief investment officer and co-founder of Maelstrom, believes Bitcoin won’t hit a bear market anytime soon because the monetary conditions are expected to stay supportive. This makes the old four-year halving cycle seem kinda irrelevant now.
What do you guys think about this?
The halving of the block reward has reduced its significance on purpose but that was always known. Meanwhile the FIAT currencies have become increasingly chaotic, the warning signs seen in 2009 at the beginnings of Bitcoin have played out as expected, presumably that includes what Satoshi expected.
The QE was just dilution of the dollar never reversed or repaired and also other global currency standards, their main concern was to not stand out against that constant degradation. Citizens have suffered though they blame the idea of profit as the reason why rather then the non stop issuance of currency for creating inflation.
I'd agree BTC should become more integrated as its more recognized and used around the world. I would disagree that Bitcoin is just another moth to the flame of centralized government policy.
We do hope BTC wont mimic or serve the failure true for decades of politics eclipsing economies, destroying modern wealth created by technology and subverting that productivity towards a central purpose misused and mispent to the detriment of nations of people.
Ahhhhh a Chief Investment Officer is offering free financial advice for the press to pass on to retail traders. How philanthropic of him what possibly could motivate him to convince the crowd what he says is true so he can contratrade them or reduce the impact of the upcoming bull run/crash/bull run.
If monetary policy were having an impact on Bitcoin, it wouldn't be rising as much as it has imo because safer investments are making decent returns and it's usually when they're making nothing that more people start trying to gamble on equities (and more equities investments usually equates to more Bitcoin investments).
At some point the four year cycle will end though. Likely due to the fact the bull run length often increases iirc with each new round. That being said, I'm not sure they'll completely end as a lot of economies/asset classes follow a 2-5 year's growth and a 2-5 year's stagnation/drop.
This future predicting statement never really go well but I also have my share of doubt whether we gonna see bearish market or not because the high inflation and risk of recession. People are seeking for sanctuary and bitcoin is one of them.
Don't wanna predict the future since I don't know for sure anyway. Whether there will be bearish market or not, I'm just gonna continue my DCA consistently.
Not to mention that I don't really trust arthur hayes' statement after he sold all his HYPE bag weeks after shilling for it.
In as much there are still new bitcoins to mine, the halving will always drive to the bull market in the 4 years event cycle. The halving is usual a season that when new mined bitcoins are cut into half on the interests of controlling the limited supplies and demanding force to make the asset keep holding values against inflations. So the halving events is what traditionally regulates all the events in the 4 years cycle.
Macroeconomy and regulatory policies only influences market volatilities and adoption rates through investors psychological behaviors. Not really associated with the bull.
Well, I must say that no matter how much people have invested in bitcoin or how much expensive bitcoin could be it would never stop the principle of bitcoin which we know to be the up and down movement, and for that it would not also limits or stops the 4 years cyclic event that regularly happens, nor even stop the bearish market that do come after the bullish market. Note that all these characters is what makes bitcoin tradable and also called volatile assets and when all these are no longer found there then we can assumed bitcoin to be a stable coin, therefore I do not agreed with him on his sayings.
You are perfectly correct but monetary and economic policies in various countries seen to likely impact the trend of Bitcoin price. For instance, we have been hearing some speculations of some countries trying to insert Bitcoin to their external reserve and if this happens it means it will have a drastic impact to Bitcoin such as appreciation in the price because it will attract more notable and significant investors to Bitcoin which is not probably as a result of the traditional halving.
Shouldn't all these we are seeing already be regarded as part of the post halving impact on bitcoin, that the market responded on the breaking news does not mean that is the only indication we use, after all, not everytime we see reactions like this, some could as well be a positive impact, it all depends on the effect on the economy, while in some other cases, we may also have them as coincidence, that is why we have in cryptocurrency, the fundamental and technical analysis altogether.
Yep, we're still on the 4 year cycle, unless there's some kind of magic that we are going to extend it for year year, hence a super-cycle. Although we have seen a new all time high pre-halving that hasn't had happen before, but still we don't have the data yet if this cycle is different or not.
So I would say that we should be cautious or try to be observant on what we might see in the last two months and then prepare for next year. It has been a roller coaster ride since Trump winning the election, but with regards to monetary polices, I think this cycle is still going to hold.
Even the economy has cycles, the economy cannot grow forever nor can it decline and be in crisis forever. So financial markets like stocks, gold or bitcoin will not be immune to that either. If I remember correctly, even a safehaven asset like gold experienced a bear market (2011-2015) and declined by more than 40% from its peak. The reason is because the economy is recovering and booming and people tend to invest in risky assets instead of looking for shelter.
So regardless of whether bitcoin is safe haven or speculative, and even if we don't enter a bear season next year. It will happen at some point in the future.
Because he, like us, cannot know the future.
The man you are quoting is just saying what he thinks is correct about bitcoin, that doesn't mean he is 100% sure of what he is saying and that doesn't mean that bitcoin will go the direction he is speculating. You have to understand that bitcoin doesn't always follow some classroom economics teachings. It is evident enough that bitcoin has set a reasonable ATH, even though the bullrun is not yet over that is to show that when it's time for the bear season bitcoin will obey the pattern it has always followed over the years. You have to understand that some of these men think that bitcoin can be predictable because of recent happenings, but they will be disappointed because the bear season is coming.
There is no need to rely on the arguments of Arthur Hayes or anyone else. Since bitcoin ETFs were approved and governments started showing interest in bitcoin, I started to believe that Halving is no longer a catalyst for the market. Instead, the market will depend largely on the government and Wall Street. Because after all, bitcoin is just a financial market, and as a financial market, cash flow is the deciding factor.
Additionally, even without a bitcoin ETF, we shouldn't expect the market to operate in a single pattern. Sooner or later things have to change at some point to ensure that no one can predict and that it is fair to all investors.
I believe that crypto will move with the stock market in the coming time instead of following the old pattern.
Very common. Every potential assets with the edge to hold values against inflations must follow it traditional events and activities such as the stocks and gold determines its value based on economy evaluation while hedges against inflations. With how the world has also been in advanced developments, the economy values will neither not remain stable while deflation may occur at it mysterious time reacting to the regulatory assets like the stocks as volatility remains it driving force. So the gold is neither not risk free because it is volatile. While bitcoin values tied to adoption and demands regulates its volatility.
The essence for needs and the skeptics to volatilities will also have it reason why one should opt out. Might not be due to trust issues but reacting according to your risk managements.
It's either we listen to Arthur Hayes as he is a well known personality in the crypto market. However, it doesn't mean that they're right. Most of them have their narrative behind. Some are perma bears while we have personalities like Michael Saylor who we all know are the face of Bitcoin because of his pro Bitcoin ideology, buy and HODL.
But with Arthur Hayes, he hasn't proven anything yet and if he is saying that there are no more 4 year cycle, then we should take everything with a grain of salt. No one can really predict as there are a lot of factors to consider specially how big Bitcoin is growing throughout the years.
Honestly we are not going to see this becoming an issue for the long term because we are used to by now. However, we need to realize that things are not going to change that easily if we are careless.
Because while the market does move time to time, it is not always the same. Like stocks and bitcoin could go down when gold goes up like right now. However we need to make sure that we are following what impacts bitcoin normally and that is the most normal situation we can follow.
If we do that then we are going to end up with a great result and shouldn't be worried about it. I get that it's not something that will be that easy to handle and we shouldn't be worried about it and can do a lot of better jobs with it if given enough time on it to research the market.
I appreciate you sharing this perspective. This is genuinely one of the more interesting debates happening in crypto right now, and I think there's legitimacy to arguments on both sides. The case for Hayes argument has real merit. The halving cycle was more predictive when Bitcoin was smaller and less integrated into broader financial systems. Now that institutional money is flowing in and regulatory frameworks are developing, macro factors fed policy, inflation expectations, geopolitical tensions plausibly have more gravitational pull than they did in 2017 or even 2021. If we're genuinely entering a period of monetary easing and risk-on sentiment that could absolutely override the technical pattern of the halving cycle. The correlation between Bitcoin and macro conditions has genuinely strengthened over time. But I'd push back on the four year cycle is dead framing. I think it's more accurate to say the halving cycle may be one factor among many rather than the factor. Market cycles are rarely driven by a single mechanism. Yes, monetary policy matters more now but that doesn't mean the halving's scarcity mechanism stops working. It just means it's no longer the dominant signal. We might see the cycle compressed, distorted, or inverted by macro conditions but that's different from it being irrelevant.
The real uncertainty is timing and magnitude. Even if Hayes is right about supportive conditions ahead, that doesn't guarantee a smooth ride. Markets overshoot. Sentiment can flip on unexpected news. The history of asset bubbles is full of smart people correctly identifying a tailwind but underestimating the air pocket that follows. Hayes is probably right that the extreme predictability of the four year cycle has diminished. But I'd be cautious about declaring it completely dead. Sometimes the old patterns persist precisely because people stop watching for them.
Really? Thought he has proven to be very good at criminal activity, and despite being in commercial Bitcoin enterprise, managed to achieve the same level of non-accountability for his crimes as traditional bankers by pleading guilty, then doing probation and community service.
Jokes aside, no need for Messers Hayes, Saylor, etc. to point out the cycle is gone -- at least in the sense we've gotten used to.