2025-12-23 08:30:28

The myth of Bitcoin's four-year cycle should be shattered.

Current price: $88,000

Many people in the trading community are still promoting the theory of four-year cycles. This group of people has now started to dump, and the reason is quite straightforward – their cycle model alarm has gone off.

According to this theory, Bitcoin will peak 18 months after the halving (which is in October 2025), and then it should crash in 2026. The current coin price is stuck at around 88,000, rather than the expected 250,000, so they conclude that this cycle has failed.

It's not a failure, it's an evolution.

Upon careful consideration, it makes no mathematical sense to forcibly impose a fixed linear cycle on a multiplication system. The growth of Bitcoin follows a logarithmic pattern and conforms to a power-law distribution. Using a fixed 4-year cycle to predict the rise and fall of scalable assets is as absurd as expecting a 40-year-old adult to grow to the height they were at 4 years old.

The problem is not with the clock, but with you reading the time incorrectly.

What does the data say? We conducted two model benchmarking tests against the entire Bitcoin history:

Annualized return of the fixed 4-year cycle model: -6,386.1

AIC value of the Log-Periodic Power Law (LPPL) model: -7,510.5

AIC difference reached 1,124.4

In statistics, a difference of 10 is already considered strong evidence. What does this data indicate? It indicates that the previous linear predictive framework based on a four-year cycle has been thoroughly dismantled by reality.

BTC-1,88%

View Original

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.

19 Likes

Reward
19
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

TestnetScholar

· 2025-12-25 22:59

Alright, let's leave it at that. Anyway, no one can accurately predict this round. This four-year cycle theory should have been discarded a long time ago. Using a linear model to fit exponentially growing assets is ridiculous. The data is right here, with a difference of 1124... There's really nothing to argue about.

View OriginalReply0

NftMetaversePainter

· 2025-12-25 06:56

actually, the logarithmic scaling argument here is chef's kiss... but let's be real, most cycle traders won't understand the topological implications of lppl models anyway. they're still stuck in linear thinking while the algorithm evolves around them.

Reply0

GasFeeNightmare

· 2025-12-23 09:02

The four-year cycle should have been thrown into the garbage long ago, yet there are still people who believe in it. The logarithmic growth aspect has indeed been overlooked by many, well said. Once again, a wave of suckers who have been played for suckers are stubbornly insisting that the cycle has failed, but in reality, it’s just that the predictions flopped. What’s being dumped at 88,000? This guy clearly doesn’t understand the market rhythm. Data differences exceeding 1,000 times? To still be so stubborn about it is truly remarkable. The issue of model failure is said quite straightforwardly, but that’s just how the market is; there will always be someone clinging to their old charts. The problem lies in the interpretation, not in the cycle; that metaphor is brilliant, haha. According to this logic, the four-year cycle should be changed to a logarithmic cycle, but I guess not many can change their way of thinking. Starting to dump at 88,000 before reaching 250,000, the hands are quite swift.

View OriginalReply0

StablecoinGuardian

· 2025-12-23 09:01

Four-year cycle collapse? Wake up, this is the real evolution signal! These people are still clinging to outdated linear thinking, while the laws of logarithms have long left them behind. If 88,000 doesn't meet expectations, they will be dumping, truly trapped by their own model, how pitiful.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketSurvivor

· 2025-12-23 08:55

The cycle theory should die; it should have been eliminated long ago. --- Those who still believe in the four-year cycle are just oil in the sucker harvesters. --- The difference between 88,000 and 250,000 - is this called failure? This is called being slapped in the face. --- You don't even understand logarithmic growth and are still drawing lines; who can you blame? --- The alarm clock rang, and people are still alive; this is the most ironic part. --- AIC is off by 1124? This data has directly sentenced the cycle theory to death. --- Using a fixed cycle to trap Bitcoin is like measuring infinity with a ruler; I really admire these people. --- Whether there's evolution or not, a bunch of people will lose money anyway. --- I never believed in this stuff, but it's still satisfying to watch them get slapped in the face. --- Linear prediction models can go to hell; reality never follows your script. --- The dream of 250,000 is gone, and now it's time to shift the blame to the cycle itself. --- The data has already spoken; those who are still promoting the cycle are truly iron-blooded suckers.

View OriginalReply0

DegenMcsleepless

· 2025-12-23 08:45

The theory of cycles should have been discarded long ago; the data is right here. It's another round of Be Played for Suckers. Logarithmic rise vs linear thinking is simply not on the same dimension. 88,000 cards here definitely don't have 250,000 fragrance, but that doesn't mean this round of the cycle is dead. The data speaks for itself, the AIC difference of 1124... directly crushed.

View OriginalReply0