In trading, the minimum for acceptance is 3; guess what, we've got 4 proven tests,
False, there were only two or three complete cycles: 2013-2017, 2017-2021 and 2021-26 (still unproven). You can't count 2009-13, because there were three times the price collapsed 80% or more from its ATH in this period.
We've had 4 cycles so far, although this last bottom made up the last cycle but we haven't seen a rally yet to say this is definitely the bottom, but it is still within the scope, we're just waiting for 2027 or maybe it might be early.
The halvings are: 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024
sourceThe cycles are: 2011 - 2015, 2015 - 2019 , 2019 - 2023, 2023 - till date

Well you're right, the last one is inconclusive but it's obvious it will be.
I guess you're looking at it from top to top, but it's actually from bottom to bottom.
This event creates bitcoin scarcity coupled with its fixed supply of 21million coins, this makes bitcoin a highly disinflationary currency.
Now you mighxxt be asking what does this have to do with anything, well this brings us to my next point of discussion.
2. The economic implications of this mechanism :
We all know the law of supply and demand, right? And how scarcity is a driving force behind the abrupt increase in price of an asset. So yeah, the above mentioned mechanism increases demand naturally.
Halvings don't create scarcity. And scarcity doesn't "increase demand".
Scarcity is a situation where demand is higher than supply. But what some people get wrong is: even during halvings, supply does not reduce - only inflation (=newly added supply) is reduced.
The effect is minimal. In the last halving, inflation decreased from about 2% to about 1%.
Let's go with rate of supply cause that's the right terminology. As you rightfully said, the rate of supply dropped but marginally the rate of demand increased, that's why the price of Bitcoin does increase the way it does. If this is not scarcity, then what is?
The adoption curve increases often, so dropping the rate of supply is a good strategy to create scarcity, no? Even if demand rate remains at a baselin; say, 50M demand every year; and the supply rate remains the same too at 2M coins every year, then demand alone will determine how scarce the commodity will be. But in a situation where the supply rate is reduced periodically, demand alone won't affect scarcity: so even if demand rate remains at a baseline, it will still have a sense of scarcity because of the reduced supply rate.
Now you might say, this doesn't explain increase in demand, lemme give another instance with a more realistic setting.
Let's say, from the onset, there are only 2M users competing for Bitcoin and that's it. Satoshi said, I'll release bitcoin for you to buy but periodically and every time the number of coins to be released will be halved. Meanwhile we have 21M coins total supply.
Cool, now the users will be scrambling to stash as much as they can. In the first release, 6M were released, they all fought for it and got 3 each. In the next, 3M were released, some got more while the others got less. In the next release I'm sure they'll all be fighting for it; at this point, the highest bidder wins.
This is exactly what is happening to Bitcoin right now, and that's why I said the halving creates scarcity. The mechanism can't account for who will adopt the asset, it can only account for the asset itself, thus creating the disinflationary mechanism that creates a sense of scarcity as long as baseline demand persists.
Halvings may have triggered the 2013 bull market, because back then it became very difficult to mine at home and people had to buy coins to speculate. But later halvings have much less incidence in the Bitcoin price than sentiment and speculation behavior.
Bitcoin and most assets out there are highly speculative, but the halving creates a sense of direction. Saying the halving has much less incidence than speculation in Bitcoin is like saying NFP news has much less incidence to USD pairs in forex whenever it is released. Just like the NFP, the halving creates room for speculation.
silk road, after FBI shut down, it still continued to rally
Silk Road was not very important for the Bitcoin rally, MtGox was a much bigger factor. And I already wrote: in 2013, I believe the halving was indeed the trigger for the rally due to the increased mining costs.
And yet the market has kept up with the same pattern with the halving as a constant factor. We can all agree to disagree, but the truth is the halving gives traders a sense of direction and it hasn't been wrong so far.
the shutdown of miners in China didn't change the trend either.
Bitcoin crashed almost 50% after the China mining ban. But ... drumroll ... there was an event that reinstated hope and positive sentiment: the legal tender acceptance in El Salvador. Otherwise, very likely the 2021 top would have occurred in May/June, at the same times where most altcoins saw their ATH.
And yet such massive news that was incredibly hyped didn't change the timeline or completely reverse the trend; it went back to test the top, creating a double top, and reversed back downwards. Meanwhile, this news only caused a 2-month rally, still holding up with the cycle's timeline.
I'm not saying news doesn't affect price, I'm saying it doesn't control the trend.During the 2022 bear market triggered by Terra luna collapse, even with El Salvador adoption, the trend still didn't reverse.
The El Salvador adoption was a "buy the rumours, sell the news" event. And adoption in El Salvador was bumpy from the start, it generated more negative news in 2022 than positive (people selling their $30 Chivo credit instantly, merchants were struggling to adopt Bitcoin, and generally the acceptance was low). So this fits very well in the picture that the 2022 bear was news-driven.
You said above that El Salvador changed the narrative, and now you claim it also contributed to the sell. Okay, so which news caused the 2023 rally? I think you're now shifting the narrative. I remember the Luna collapse very well, it created massive FUD that triggered a bear market. And honestly, you're the first I've ever heard saying the El Salvador adoption created a decline in Bitcoin price.
Even when the FTT scandal happened in 2022 that drove price below its previous ATH, this would have triggered an either prolonged or a more aggressive bear market,
Bitcoin did fall 15-20% more after the FTX scandal.
So no, most of your examples are exactly the other way around

But you will for sure still find enough cyclists in this forum

Enjoy the ride while it lasts -- eventually, I'm sure, the pattern will break. Maybe the strong support in the 60k area is already a sign of people frontrunning the "predicted market bottom" in the second half of 2026 ...
I never said news doesn't cause change in price, but it happens momentarily. They don't change the overall trend or the timeline with respect to the 4-year cycle.
The FTT scandal bottomed price at 15k and this happened 10 days after the scandal. After the bottom, price immediately went back up, following a precise pattern of less than ±3% of its previous ATH.
If we claim macro-economic news is the driving force behind these trends, why didn't this news cause a major shift in trend? Why did the price instead keep to a structured pattern and timeline despite this news?
The 4-year cycle is simply caused by human speculation. There is nothing about Bitcoin that makes it so that there will be a bull season and a bear season every 4 years.
What happens is that people speculate that the price of Bitcoin will increase because of the halving, so they buy. This increase in demand increases the price of Bitcoin. After a couple of months, investors will start to take profit, especially institutional investors, so this causes a ripple effect, and more people start to sell, and that is how the bear season is created.
If, for whatever reason, people don't speculate that the price will increase after the halving, then there will be no bull season. But because of human behavior, people would always speculate.
So why do you think people speculate the halving will cause price to increase?
If you claim there is nothing about Bitcoin that creates these seasons, and you go ahead to say their speculations on price increase based on halving causes the season, then where does the halving they speculate on come from?
Is the halving not a mechanism hard-coded in Bitcoin?