Here’s a bold claim: the so-called 'four-year Bitcoin cycle' isn’t dead—it’s just evolved, and in ways that might surprise you. But here’s where it gets controversial: what if the real drivers behind Bitcoin’s cycles are no longer its halving events, but political turmoil and liquidity shifts? That’s exactly what Markus Thielen, head of research at 10x Research, argues. Speaking on The Wolf Of All Streets Podcast, Thielen challenges the narrative that the cycle is 'broken.' Instead, he believes it’s alive and well, but now shaped more by U.S. election timelines, central bank policies, and the ebb and flow of capital into risky assets than by Bitcoin’s programmed supply cuts.
Thielen points to historical data to back his claim. Bitcoin’s major peaks in 2013, 2017, and 2021 all occurred in the fourth quarter—a pattern that aligns more closely with presidential election cycles and broader political uncertainty than with the timing of Bitcoin halvings. For instance, he highlights the current political landscape: 'There’s this uncertainty that the sitting president’s party might lose seats, and that could stall their agenda,' he explains. 'If Trump or the Republicans lose ground in the House, it could shift the entire economic outlook—and Bitcoin could feel the ripple effects.'
And this is the part most people miss: the Federal Reserve’s recent rate cut hasn’t given Bitcoin the boost it historically would have. Why? Thielen argues that institutional investors, now the dominant players in crypto, are more cautious than ever. With mixed policy signals from the Fed and tightening liquidity, they’re hesitant to pour capital into riskier assets like Bitcoin. Add to that the slowdown in Bitcoin inflows compared to last year, and you’ve got a recipe for consolidation, not a parabolic rally.
So, what does this mean for investors? Thielen suggests ditching the halving-focused mindset and instead keeping a close eye on political catalysts—U.S. elections, fiscal policy debates, and shifts in monetary conditions. It’s a paradigm shift that could change how we time the market.
But not everyone agrees. BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes boldly declared in October that the four-year crypto cycle is dead, though he blames global liquidity trends, not institutional interest. He argues that past bull markets ended when monetary conditions tightened, particularly when U.S. dollar and Chinese yuan liquidity slowed. In his view, the halving has been overhyped as a cause rather than a coincidence. Here’s a thought-provoking question for you: Is the four-year cycle truly dead, or has it simply transformed into something more complex and politically driven? Let’s debate this in the comments—I’m curious to hear your take!
