A founder of a certain exchange recently posed a question: Is it time to move on from the old four-year halving script of Bitcoin?
This statement sounds bold, but upon reflection, it’s not without reason. In the past, everyone focused on the halving schedule to speculate on cryptocurrencies because supply tightening was the most certain logic. But now the situation has changed—the institutional players are rushing in with real money, and regulatory frameworks are gradually becoming clearer. These new variables may be reshaping the underlying rhythm of the market.
If the traditional cycle truly becomes invalid, then perhaps we will no longer see the "four-year bull-bear switch," but instead enter a kind of more persistent super cycle. Of course, this is just a possibility; the market has never revealed its answers in advance.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
7 Likes
Reward
7
8
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
GamefiEscapeArtist
· 7h ago
Halving script invalid? Then what can retail investors buy the dip on, haha
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-75ee51e7
· 8h ago
The halving curse must be broken; institutional entrance has indeed changed the game rules.
View OriginalReply0
ZkSnarker
· 10h ago
ngl the halving thesis getting stale is actually a fun observation... but here's the thing about—institutions don't really care about supply schedules the way retail traders do. they're just looking at macro hedges and regulatory tailwinds lol
Reply0
SleepyValidator
· 12-10 14:53
This talk actually makes me sleepy. The halving is ineffective? Doesn't that mean my cycle predictions over the past few years are all in vain... However, institutional entry has indeed changed the game, and that's something to acknowledge.
View OriginalReply0
DustCollector
· 12-10 14:41
Haha, words sound nice, but do institutions really have that much power? I still believe in the halving.
View OriginalReply0
GweiWatcher
· 12-10 14:40
That's a good point, but does that mean that institutional entry will definitely break the circle? I don't think so.
View OriginalReply0
HypotheticalLiquidator
· 12-10 14:40
Cycle failure? Laughs, that’s just a sign that the health factor is beginning to deteriorate.
Can institutional investors change the market rhythm? I think it’s mostly paving the way for the next wave of chain reactions and liquidations.
Honestly, no one can change the supply logic; it's just that there are more leveraged players.
Super cycles sound impressive, but in reality, it’s just an illusion before the borrowing rate gets out of control.
Halving or not halving, it only changes who bears the brunt at the liquidation price.
View OriginalReply0
ShibaSunglasses
· 12-10 14:24
Can institutions really change the game? I don't think so. If the halving cycle truly becomes invalid, that would be too outrageous.
A founder of a certain exchange recently posed a question: Is it time to move on from the old four-year halving script of Bitcoin?
This statement sounds bold, but upon reflection, it’s not without reason. In the past, everyone focused on the halving schedule to speculate on cryptocurrencies because supply tightening was the most certain logic. But now the situation has changed—the institutional players are rushing in with real money, and regulatory frameworks are gradually becoming clearer. These new variables may be reshaping the underlying rhythm of the market.
If the traditional cycle truly becomes invalid, then perhaps we will no longer see the "four-year bull-bear switch," but instead enter a kind of more persistent super cycle. Of course, this is just a possibility; the market has never revealed its answers in advance.