Rethinking the Bitcoin Halving Effect: New Market Logic Under Multiple Clocks
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Rethinking the Bitcoin Halving Effect: New Market Logic Under Multiple Clocks
ETFs, policy liquidity, and derivatives are rewriting the most famous pattern in cryptocurrency, transforming the old four-year cycle into a second-order signal.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: Andjela Radmilac
Translation: Luffy, Foresight News
The four-year Bitcoin cycle used to be a comfort blanket for crypto market participants. Even those who claimed not to believe in it would still trade according to its rhythm.
Approximately every four years, the issuance of new bitcoins is halved. The market remains calm for months, then liquidity starts flowing in, leveraged capital follows, retail investors rediscover their wallet passwords, and Bitcoin's price chart embarks on another journey toward new all-time highs.
Asset management firm 21Shares illustrated this old script with straightforward data: In 2012, Bitcoin rose from around $12 to $1,150, followed by an 85% correction; in 2016, it climbed from about $650 to $20,000, then dropped 80%; in 2020, it surged from roughly $8,700 to $69,000 before retreating 75%.
So when, by late 2025, claims that "the cycle is dead" began circulating widely, the market took notice—not because they came from retail traders, but because they were echoed across institutions: Bitwise suggested 2026 might break the traditional cycle pattern; Grayscale declared the crypto market had entered a new institutional era; and 21Shares explicitly questioned whether the four-year cycle remained valid.
From these debates, one core truth emerges: Bitcoin halving remains a fixed event and will continue to exert significant influence on the market—but it is no longer the sole determinant of Bitcoin’s price rhythm.
This does not mean the end of cycles, only that today’s market has countless “clocks,” each ticking at different speeds.
The Old Cycle Was Once a ‘Lazy Man’s Calendar’—Now It’s a Cognitive Trap
The Bitcoin halving cycle never held magic. Its effectiveness stemmed solely from compressing three key dynamics into a clear timeline: reduced new supply, a focal point for market narratives, and a shared timing reference for investor positioning. This “calendar” solved the coordination problem for capital allocation.
Investors didn’t need to study liquidity models, cross-asset financial systems, or identify marginal buyers—they could simply point to the quadrennial milestone and say: “Just wait patiently.”
But this is precisely why the old cycle has become a cognitive trap. The clearer the script, the more it fosters singular trading logic: position ahead of the halving, wait for the price surge, sell at the peak, buy the dip during the bear market. When this playbook fails to deliver predictable, substantial returns, market reactions swing to extremes: either clinging to the belief that the cycle still rules everything, or declaring it definitively dead.
Both camps appear to overlook real structural changes in the Bitcoin market.
Today, Bitcoin’s investor base is more diverse, investment channels are increasingly aligned with traditional finance, and the venues driving price discovery are converging with mainstream risk assets. State Street’s analysis of institutional demand confirms this trend: regulated spot Bitcoin exchange-traded products (ETPs) have arrived, and this “familiar financial instrument” effect is reshaping the market, even as Bitcoin remains the dominant asset by market cap in crypto.
When the primary forces driving the market shift, so too must its rhythm. This isn’t because halvings have lost relevance, but because they now compete with other forces—forces that may overshadow them for extended periods.
Policy and ETFs Are the New Rhythm Keepers
To understand why the old cycle has largely lost its predictive power, we must begin with the part of the story least associated with “crypto”: cost of capital.
On December 10, 2025, the Federal Reserve cut the target range for the federal funds rate by 25 basis points to 3.50%-3.75%. Weeks later, Reuters reported that Fed Governor Christopher Waller advocated even more aggressive easing in 2026, including potential rate cuts totaling 150 basis points over the year. Meanwhile, China’s central bank indicated it would maintain ample liquidity in 2026 through reserve requirement ratio (RRR) cuts and interest rate reductions.
This means that global shifts in financing conditions alter the size and willingness of the buyer pool for high-volatility assets—and set the tone for all asset classes.
Combined with the impact of spot Bitcoin ETFs, the four-year cycle narrative begins to look increasingly narrow.
Spot ETFs have undoubtedly brought in new buyers, but more importantly, they’ve transformed the nature of demand. Within the ETF structure, buying pressure manifests as share creations, while selling pressure appears as redemptions.
The drivers behind these capital flows may have nothing to do with Bitcoin halvings: portfolio rebalancing, risk budget adjustments, declines in other asset prices, tax considerations, wealth platform approval timelines, and the slow pace of distribution rollout.
The significance of this last factor is vastly underestimated. Bank of America announced that starting January 5, 2026, it would expand access for financial advisors to recommend crypto ETPs. This seemingly minor access upgrade actually transforms the scope of eligible buyers, their investment methods, and compliance constraints.
This explains why even the strongest versions of the “cycle is dead” argument contain clear limitations. They don’t deny the halving’s impact—they merely emphasize that it can no longer single-handedly dictate market timing.
Bitwise’s overall outlook for 2026 rests on exactly this logic: macro policy matters, investment channels matter, and when marginal buyers come from traditional finance rather than native crypto channels, market behavior will differ fundamentally. 21Shares echoes this view in its cyclical research reports and *Outlook 2026*, identifying institutional integration as the core driver of future crypto trading activity.
Grayscale goes further, defining 2026 as the year crypto markets become deeply integrated with U.S. financial infrastructure and regulatory frameworks. In other words, today’s crypto market is now tightly woven into the daily operations of traditional finance.
If we are to redefine Bitcoin’s cyclical patterns, the most concise approach is to treat them as a set of weekly-adjusted “control indicators.”
The first indicator is policy trajectory: not just interest rate moves, but also marginal tightening or easing in financial conditions, and whether related market narratives are accelerating or stalling.
The second is ETF capital flow mechanics, since creation and redemption of shares directly reflect real demand inflows and outflows via this dominant new channel.
The third is distribution access—who is permitted to buy at scale, and under what constraints. When large wealth platforms, brokerages, or model portfolios lower their entry barriers, the buyer base expands slowly and mechanically, with effects far exceeding short-lived bursts of market enthusiasm. Conversely, restricted access narrows funding pipelines.
Two additional indicators assess internal market conditions. One is volatility characteristics: whether prices are shaped by balanced two-way trading or dominated by market stress, typically marked by rapid selling, liquidity droughts, and forced deleveraging.
The other is market positioning health: whether leverage is being accumulated prudently or piled up excessively, increasing fragility. Sometimes, Bitcoin’s spot price appears stable while underlying positions grow dangerously crowded; at other times, price action seems chaotic while leverage quietly resets and risks gradually dissipate.
Collectively, these indicators do not negate the halving’s role—they simply place it within a more accurate structural context. Major Bitcoin price movements are increasingly determined by liquidity, capital flow systems, and concentrations of directional risk.
Derivatives Turn Cycle Peaks Into Risk Transfer Markets
A third clock—one overlooked by most cycle theories because it’s harder to explain—is derivatives.
In past retail-dominated “pump-and-dump” cycles, leverage acted like a party spiraling out of control at the end.
In today’s more institutionally-involved market, derivatives are no longer secondary tools but the primary mechanism for risk transfer. This alters both when and how market stress emerges and resolves.
Glassnode, a blockchain analytics firm, noted in its early January 2026 Weekly Report that the crypto market had completed year-end position resetting, profit-taking had eased, and key cost basis levels were becoming critical indicators for sustainable upward momentum.
This stands in stark contrast to the atmosphere during previous cycle peaks, when the market obsessively sought justifications for vertical price spikes.
Indeed, derivatives haven’t eliminated market euphoria—but they’ve profoundly changed how it starts, evolves, and ends.
Options allow large holders to express views while protecting against downside risk; futures enable hedging that alleviates spot market selling pressure. Liquidation cascades still occur, but they may happen earlier—clearing out risky positions before the final parabolic top arrives. As a result, Bitcoin’s price path may evolve into repeated cycles of “risk release followed by rapid rallies.”
For this reason, public disagreements among major financial institutions have become valuable rather than confusing.
On one hand, Bitwise argued at the end of 2025 that the four-year cycle could be broken; on the other, Fidelity Investments maintained that even if 2026 turns out to be a “consolidation year,” the fundamental cycle remains intact.
Such divergence doesn’t imply one side is right and the other wrong. What we can say is that the old cycle is no longer the only viable analytical model. The existence of reasonable disagreement stems from the growing complexity of market drivers—including policy, capital flows, positioning, and market structure.
What, then, might the future of Bitcoin cycles look like?
We can distill it into three plausible scenarios—unexciting enough to avoid viral memes, yet highly relevant for actual trading and investment:
- Cycle extension: Halvings remain influential, but the timing of price peaks is delayed, as liquidity injection and product distribution take longer to transmit through traditional financial channels.
- Range-bound consolidation followed by gradual ascent: Bitcoin spends more time digesting supply shocks and adjusting positions until capital flows and policy trends align to trigger a sustained move.
- Macro-driven dominance: Policy shifts and cross-asset market pressures dominate for a period, rendering the halving’s impact negligible amid fund redemptions and broad market deleveraging.
If there’s one clear takeaway from all this, it’s this: Declaring the four-year cycle dead is less insightful than it seems—it’s ultimately a lazy, meaningless shortcut.
A better—and truly the only rational—approach to Bitcoin cycles is to acknowledge that multiple clocks now govern the market. The winners in 2026 won’t be those memorizing a single date, but those who can read the market’s true “operating rhythm”: sensing shifts in funding costs, tracking ETF capital flows, detecting the quiet buildup and concentrated release of risk in derivatives markets.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
@CryptoSlate
