Opinions on the Four Year Cycle Theory A group of scientists have been observing the height growth curve of a child since birth. They found that the child was growing taller from birth to the age of 18. So they came to the conclusion: If this trend continues, by the age of 80, he will grow to eight meters tall Does it sound absurd? This simple and crude linear extrapolation is essentially a logical fallacy. Only looking at samples and time periods completely ignores the underlying structural changes and driving factors. The 'four-year cycle theory' in the cryptocurrency industry is actually the same. The so-called bull market, Essentially, it's just the process of ancient whales dumping chips for latecomers. Only the market trend of 'selling while rising' can allow these old guys to ship smoothly; Under normal liquidity, they simply cannot produce that much goods. Before the bull market of 2021, BTC was still a niche asset, So it's all a 'single cow' - it ends with just one watering. But after 2021, With the improvement of market liquidity and the entry of institutional funds, The overall volatility has decreased, The bull market is beginning to evolve into a 'bull market'. From this perspective, I don't think the 'four-year cycle' will last forever. As Bitcoin gradually moves from an edge asset to a mainstream asset, The future structure should become: A larger main cycle is overlaid with multiple small bull bear cycles. And the length of this main cycle is likely to exceed four years. In fact, similar phenomena have already begun to appear in the previous cycle: Between the two bull peaks of 64K and 69K, there is a '519 micro bear market'. This cycle is more pronounced: From 73K in March 2024 to 49K in August 2024, From 110K in January 2025 to 75K in April 2025—— These are just small callbacks in the big cycle, But not a real bear market. So from the perspective of market capacity, As liquidity improves, it is entirely reasonable for the bull market to extend. Let's talk back to the chip side. One of the core arguments of the "four-year cycle theory" is that, It is bound to the halving event, But as BTC continues to be mined, The proportion of unexcavated Bitcoin in the overall circulation is decreasing. The halving only affects marginal supply, And this marginal quantity itself is also getting smaller and smaller. In theory, its actual impact on the market should also decrease accordingly. This can be seen from the market reaction: Before and after the halving in 2020, the market reacted violently and fluctuated significantly; In 2024, if someone hadn't specifically reminded us that it was a halving day, Just looking at the K-bars before and after, you might think it was just an ordinary trading day. In the past, miners held a considerable amount of BTC, Due to temporary selling caused by rising costs, It can indeed affect the pace of the market. But now, aside from Satoshi Nakamoto, The ones who truly hold huge chips are no longer miners, But rather super institutional entities such as BTC spot ETFs and MicroStrategy. The decision-making logic of this group of new players, It is no longer an outdated concept like 'halving' or 'four-year cycle theory'. What they are looking at is macro liquidity, interest rate environment, cost of capital, and the potential of BTC as an alternative stored value asset to gold. So from an objective logic perspective, I don't think the 'four-year cycle theory' makes sense. The current market downturn, More simply because some people still believe in the existence of a four-year cycle, And this belief itself, On the contrary, it affects short-term prices through reflexivity. But the true driving force of the cycle is far from over.