What should be known about bitcoin cycle is that the historical cycle of bitcoin is not rigid but flexible, the new ATH that was reached before the halving is a background to that fact, otherwise there was no how an ETF approval could have interrupted the historical process if it were that programmatic as some people refers it to be.

With how the past 4 cycles has occurred with ATH made in each of these events, people (investors) have not only taken a timely note on when to get in for profit but also when to get out with profit made from gradual/chunk accumulations.

Of course you can see it that way, but even then: in 2013 you have an 80% crash between April and June (260$ to 50$). So you actually have two clear bottoms in this cycle. What I'm saying is that the first cycle, you can measure it like you want, is not "playing by the rules" that were set up by "cyclists" later. The market was very immature back then.

If you count from top to top you can actually "make the most" of the cycle theory, because the 2013-17 and 2017-21 bull-bear cycles were indeed quite "regular". While if the first "regular" cycle starts in 2015 (or 2016, if you count "from halving to halving"), then you already are on thin ice with the cycle hypothesis because you have only two complete cycles, which can simply be anecdotical evidence

This is the typical crystal ball, sorry Nobody can predict the future. And according to your measuring above the "current cycle" still will last for a complete year.

No, I haven't said anything about demand. The halving cycle (this one does exist ) only decreases the supply increase.

Demand cannot be generated by an algorithm. In Bitcoin, it is mostly driven by sentiment, because we have no really good theory about its price (TAM, Metcalfe's Law etc. are all incomplete, and others like S2F are complete pseudoscience, never were peer-reviewed ). Cyclists do influence sentiment, and so they can create demand. But that is the self-fulfilling prophecy theory which I fully support and which I consider the main reason for the relatively regular cyclic behavior in 2013-21.

Okay here you actually have a point: if demand increases in the same rate than the supply increase, and then a halving hits, then you will indeed have a demand surplus.

But this linear adoption curve lacks evidence. You could say the long term price evolution hints at it, but the problem is: sentiment is playing a much larger role than a supply decrease of one (2024 halving) or 2-3 (2020 halving) percentage points. Sentiment influences also long term holders, i.e. the whole >20 million supply, while the halvings only affect the (now tiny) amount created by miners newly every year (around 165k coins yearly).

The first halving indeed had a large impact on supply increase. In late 2012 10.5 million coins were mined at a rate of 2.6 million per year. The drop from 2.6 to 1.3 million thus was indeed a very likely trigger for the 2013 bull market. Also because many people were still mining at home with GPUs or even CPUs, but the latecomers had to experience that this was becoming very slow after the halving. And thus, if they wanted to participate with the emerging rally, they had to buy Bitcoins.

No, there is no fighting for the new coins. There is demand for all coins of the supply, but all coins of the supply also can be sold

Here I'm with you. The self-fulfilling prophecy theory again

I already explained why, just connect the dots:

- The 2021 announcement of "legal tender" adoption created massive hype and managed to reverse the bear market triggered by the China ban. Without El Salvador, we would never have had even two complete "cycles"
- The adoption in El Salvador was wonky. It was from September 2021 on if I remember correctly. So the "introduction hype" managed to last 2 months more, until the high in November. But then the first negative news appeared, like that most people sold their Chivo holdings. This contributed that the "narrative change" was not sustainable. So the first profit taking wave of late 2021/early 2022, which normally would have caused only a dip, was able to sustain the bearish direction because El Salvador didn't help anymore. I don't think that was the only trigger for the bear market. Without Terra/Luna, until mid-2022 the bullish sentiment could have taken over again, but Terra/Luna was imo the definitive "death blow" for the bull market. And the news in El Salvador kept worsening, everybody laughed about Bukele and their melting "Bitcoin treasure" ...

In a sentiment-driven asset like Bitcoin, they can in my opinion indeed trigger trend changes. That's what happened in 2021/2022.

In this thread I have already analysed months ago which news could have been strong enough for such a sentiment change. Of course, profit taking waves and bubbles are also a big factor.

To answer the question about the 2023 rally: the price was in a very low territory most of the year, but there were no major negative news after FTX, so it stabilized and slowly hope was returning. But the big rally only started when the ETFs appeared.


News can influence the sentiment only for a relatively short time. But they can trigger massive sell-offs which hit sentiment, or on the other hand, increase the demand. If this sentiment hit is sustainable, then the trend can perpetuate.

The 2022 bear, as I already wrote, was not triggered by a single event but a sequence of at least three events: Terra/Luna, the disappointing adoption in El Salvador, and then FTX. In addition, there was a selloff triggered by profit taking after the massive gains in 2021. Overbought and oversold conditions are the other major factor in trend changes. And there is also the self fulfilling prophecy. The "cycle theory" was around since at least 2020, I think I even saw it earlier (2018 perhaps?), because the massive bull markets in 2013 and 2017 were exactly 4 years away, like the halvings, and yeah then people recognized a "pattern" and traded it.

So no, what I'm saying is not that news are everything. But instead that news are one of at least three important factors that can determine the sentiment and thus the trend of a year or even longer.

Appreciate your detailed answer anyway