On January 28, 2025, Bitcoin transitioned into a high-level consolidation after hitting historical highs. The price still appeared to be in a "bull market range," but intense debates began within the market: has this cycle already prematurely entered a bear market phase? On one side are institutional funds locked in ETF products, increasingly hesitant between the changing redemption data and macro environment; on the other side are retail investors leveraging contracts and loans, betting heavily at high levels for "one more bull peak." At this moment, the sharp rise in gold prices and the significant long-term increase in silver clashed with the narrative of Bitcoin's "four-year cycle eternity," leaving the question of which market or asset will trigger the next real shock unresolved.
Reversal of Four-Year Cycle Belief: The "Typical Bear Market" in the Eyes of Bears
● Contrarian Judgment: At the beginning of 2025, while mainstream opinion was still immersed in the optimistic sentiment of "the bull market after the halving has not ended," Liquid Capital founder Yi Lihua proposed a completely opposite judgment—"the biggest selling point for bears is the four-year cycle; in fact, 2025 is already a typical bear market." He provided a relatively contracted oscillation range: Bitcoin fluctuating between $100,000 ± $20,000, and Ethereum oscillating between $3,000 ± $1,500, pulling the market back from "unlimited imagination" to a calm framework of "high-level box."
● Misalignment in On-Chain Data: CryptoQuant analyst Woominkyu noted that the percentage of loss supply rising often corresponds to the early stages of a bear market, which sharply contrasts with the appearance of prices still oscillating at high levels. On-chain data shows that an increasing number of chips are falling back into losses while confirming that the nominal price of the market remains at historical highs, creating a structural misalignment where "the shell still looks like a bull market, but the inside is close to the bear market starting point," as if past top signals and current trends have been disassembled and reorganized.
● Anomalies in Cycle Comparisons: Comparing several classic four-year cycles, Bitcoin typically sees a high proportion of profit-taking and nearly unanimous optimism during price peaks. However, this round in 2025 is markedly different. Although prices challenge and refresh highs, the rise in loss supply and changes in on-chain cost structure resemble the early stages of past bear markets, forcing the possibility that "new price highs ≠ bull market peak" onto the table, compelling the market to reassess its mechanized belief in the four-year cycle.
ETF Fund Tug-of-War: Institutions Seeking Compromise in Ethereum
● Fragmentation of Daily Fund Flows: On January 28, 2025, the flow of funds between different ETFs showed a rare split. The Ethereum spot ETF recorded a net inflow of approximately $28.0951 million, with the BlackRock ETHA product alone absorbing about $27.3431 million, almost monopolizing the day's incremental funds; meanwhile, the Bitcoin spot ETF saw a net outflow of about $19.6449 million, clearly signaling a shift in attitude, directly indicating "increase ETH, decrease BTC" on the redemption forms.
● Divergence Between Issuers and Assets: Even against the backdrop of overall outflows from Bitcoin ETFs, Fidelity FBTC still recorded a net inflow of about $19.4510 million in a single day, indicating that not all institutions are collectively withdrawing but are making more refined choices between different issuers and products. This state of having some products continuously allocated while the overall trend weakens highlights a reordering of asset preferences—Bitcoin is no longer seen as "the only crypto beta" but merely a component that needs dynamic weight adjustment.
● Institutional Compromise in Asset Allocation Logic: As the rhetoric of "2025 is already a typical bear market" heats up, some institutions choose to seek a compromise path by increasing ETH and reducing BTC: neither completely withdrawing from the crypto space nor exposing themselves to a single asset at nominal highs. Ethereum's multiple attributes in technical narrative, ecological applications, and regulatory acceptance make it a relatively balanced target in this round of rebalancing, serving as an intermediate choice for some institutions when faced with uncertainty regarding the "bear market narrative."
Retail Investors' High-Stakes Bets: The Hidden Minefield of On-Chain Costs
● Tight Cost Boundary: Based on on-chain cost data, the critical boundary for short-term holders is concentrated around $96,500, with deeper support levels at approximately $83,400 and $80,700. As long as the spot price remains firmly above these costs, leveraged bulls can comfort themselves that this is a "healthy correction"; however, if it effectively breaks below $96,500 and further touches the $80,000 range, it could trigger a large number of short-term chips to be passively liquidated and margin calls, instantly amplifying the previously mild oscillation into a chain reaction.
● Emotional Portrait of Leveraged Bets: On contract and lending platforms, retail investors amplify the one-sided fantasy of "the final push at the end of the bull market" with high leverage, willing to increase long positions at higher funding costs, hoping to seize returns that outperform the index in the so-called "last leg." This risk appetite, which rises in sync with prices, sharply contrasts with the more restrained and slow-moving institutions within ETFs: the former cares about this month or this week's explosion; the latter is concerned with the smoothness of the drawdown curve over the next two to three years.
● Groups Pushed to the Frontline of Drawdowns: When the rising percentage of loss supply mentioned by CryptoQuant combines with increased leverage, retail investors who entered at high levels are actually standing at the forefront of potential massive drawdowns. Many do not realize that their actions of increasing positions are not riding the trend but are piling on leverage at a stage where on-chain cost lines begin to loosen and some chips quietly turn to losses. Once the market chooses to reprice with a long bearish candle or several days of consecutive drawdowns, this portion of funds will be the first to bear the brunt, rather than those institutions that have already reduced positions and adjusted through ETFs.
Gold and Silver Surge: Where is the Money Escaping the Crypto Space Going?
● Timeline of Precious Metal Trends: While the crypto market endlessly debates bulls and bears, gold prices have surged to approximately $5,540 per ounce, with a monthly increase of nearly 30%, achieving what should have been the annual growth rate in a very short time. Meanwhile, silver has cumulatively surged about 148% in 2025, followed by a further increase of about 64% in 2026, creating a macro picture of precious metals soaring, providing compelling price evidence for the migration of funds.
● Impact of Market Capitalization Comparisons: On a day of gold's surge, the market capitalization increase once reached about $1.64 trillion, a figure that can almost be compared to the current overall market capitalization of Bitcoin. The symbolic meaning of "gold's daily volatility ≈ one Bitcoin ecosystem" is extremely strong: when a single-day pulse of a traditional safe-haven asset can match the entire market capitalization of a crypto flagship asset, the narrative that originally positioned itself as "digital gold" inevitably faces psychological turbulence and relative value questioning.
● Reallocation of Macro Hedge Chips: In a macro environment characterized by repeated geopolitical conflicts, fluctuating inflation expectations, and uncertain policy prospects, large funds are increasingly inclined to place their hedge chips on gold and silver rather than on highly volatile, evolving regulatory on-chain assets. For institutions seeking stability in their balance sheets and liquidity safety, the rise in precious metals not only provides considerable paper gains but also psychologically weakens the necessity to maintain large crypto exposures, making the decision to "move some chips from the crypto space to gold and silver" defensible.
The Game of Divergence: Institutions and Retail Investors Betting on Different Scripts
● Interwoven Signals of Two Fund Lines: ETF redemption data, on-chain cost lines, and changes in loss supply have woven a clear contrasting picture. On one side are institutional funds slowly reallocating through ETFs, attempting to reduce high-level exposure without triggering severe market volatility; on the other side are retail investors, alternating in taking positions with each price pullback, using higher leverage and shorter time frames to combat the potential onset of a bear market, with the two fund lines intersecting yet moving in different directions.
● Pull of Bull and Bear Narratives: Within the bullish camp, many still adhere to the traditional four-year cycle belief, arguing that as long as extreme euphoria has not been seen after the halving and the true "crazy moment" has not occurred, the bull peak has not yet arrived; while another group agrees with the new narrative that "nominal prices are continuously hitting new highs, but the structure has already turned bearish," believing that what is currently seen is merely the tug-of-war at the beginning of a bear market and the high-level turnover before capital flight. Both narratives have data and historical segments to support them but continuously hinder each other in actual trading.
● The Real Risk: In this structure, the core risk does not simply stem from the direction of prices moving up or down, but from funds with completely different rhythms betting on the same time window. Institutions tend to slowly adjust their allocations, while retail investors tend to amplify leverage and seek extreme returns within short-term windows. When these two rhythms collide, any external shock—whether from macro policy, sudden changes in ETF flows, or further surges in gold—could amplify into a cascading volatility, turning what could have been a smooth cyclical adjustment into a dramatic boom and bust.
The Next Act of Bear Market Expectations: How Will the Hedge Narrative Rewrite the Four-Year Cycle?
The current contradiction is clear: Bitcoin and Ethereum prices are still oscillating near historical highs, but the directions of ETF funds and leveraged funds are increasingly diverging; meanwhile, gold and silver are racing down another parallel track, absorbing hedging and risk-averse demand with tangible gains. If, in the near future, gold continues to strengthen while the crypto market digests previous gains through slow clearing and structural rebalancing, then the originally rhythmically anchored "four-year cycle" may be rewritten by a larger "macro hedge cycle," forcing the market to redefine the risk premium and narrative status that Bitcoin should enjoy. Moving forward, investors need to closely monitor several key signals: whether ETFs continue to show directional net inflows or outflows, whether the $96,500 line and its lower support can hold the defense line for short-term holders, and whether gold's current strength can be sustained. The convergence of these paths will ultimately determine whether the "2025 bear market narrative" is self-evident through on-chain data and fund flows or is forced to be corrected in a new round of market movements.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
