Marketdash
Back to News

The Four-Year Bitcoin Cycle Was Always a Mirage, And Here's Why the Data Shows It

MarketDash Editorial Team
10 days ago
Bitcoin's famous four-year cycle is under fire from analysts who say the pattern is built on statistical illusions, cherry-picked data, and a sample size far too small to prove anything meaningful about future price movements.

The Halving Narrative Meets Statistical Reality

The four-year cycle has become gospel in crypto circles, but new analysis suggests it's more folklore than fact. The core problem? Markets don't wait for events they already know about. Bitcoin halvings are scheduled years in advance, which means traders price them in continuously rather than reacting in neat four-year intervals.

Think about it this way: if you know your neighbor is going to move out in exactly two years, you don't suddenly react when moving day arrives. You've been thinking about it the whole time. That's how efficient markets work, and Bitcoin has become efficient enough that predetermined events lose their shock value.

Four Data Points Don't Make a Pattern

Here's where the statistics get uncomfortable for cycle believers. Bitcoin's entire price history contains exactly four of these supposed cycles. Four. In any legitimate statistical analysis, that's not a sample size, it's an anecdote. Treating four observations as proof of a repeating pattern creates what looks like a reliable framework where none actually exists.

The critique goes deeper. With enough backtesting across thousands of potential timeframes, some periods will appear statistically significant purely by chance. This is the multiple testing problem, and it's why data scientists are so careful about distinguishing real signals from statistical noise. Many cycle proponents, perhaps without realizing it, cherry-pick the periods that look cyclical while quietly ignoring the rest. The result is a false sense of predictability that evaporates under scrutiny.

When Models Break, New Ones Appear

Survivorship bias compounds the issue. Remember PlanB's Stock-to-Flow model? It gained massive popularity when price happened to align with its forecasts, then spectacularly failed in later periods. As those models break down, new ones emerge to take their place, creating the illusion that the cycle persists even as the actual predictions keep shifting. It's like claiming you have a reliable weather forecasting method but changing the formula every time it rains unexpectedly.

The Market Has Changed Beneath Our Feet

Critics also point to non-stationarity, which is a fancy way of saying Bitcoin's statistical behavior changes over time. The market that existed in 2009 bears almost no resemblance to today's ecosystem. Liquidity, derivatives structure, institutional participation, regulatory landscape, and miner economics have all evolved dramatically. A pattern observed during Bitcoin's early low-liquidity era has little reason to apply to its current market structure.

As market regimes shift, any model built on outdated parameters rapidly loses predictive power. This makes the four-year cycle particularly vulnerable to structural change. You can't use a map from 2009 to navigate 2025.

The Art of Making Any Chart Look Cyclical

Most visual cycle charts rely on curve fitting, and here's where it gets almost artistic. Analysts can adjust log scales, trendline angles, smoothing functions, and starting points to make nearly any upward-trending asset appear cyclical. When price deviates from the prediction, the cycle is often redrawn rather than abandoned. This makes the hypothesis non-falsifiable, which in scientific terms means it's not actually a hypothesis at all.

Chicago-based attorney and Bitcoin advocate Joe Carlasare captured the sentiment in a recent post on X, urging traders to "free your mind" of four-year narratives and focus instead on actual price structure and liquidity dynamics.

What the Charts Actually Show Right Now

Bitcoin is attempting to stabilize after defending support at the $86,700 area, which aligns with the 0.382 Fibonacci retracement of the prior rally. Buyers have pushed price back above $91,500, though the rebound remains corrective while BTC trades below the 20-day and 50-day EMAs at $93,200 and $100,500.

The broader structure remains capped by the descending channel that has rejected every rally since the $124,000 peak. A break above the $93,800 to $97,000 resistance band is needed to confirm momentum rotation. Failure to reclaim the 0.5 and 0.618 retracement levels keeps downside targets open toward $86,700 and $81,900.

Short-term indicators show improving momentum, but traders are viewing the move as relief until BTC closes decisively above the EMA cluster near $100,500. In other words, the price action is doing what price action does, regardless of where we are in some mythical four-year cycle.

Back to News

The Four-Year Bitcoin Cycle Was Always a Mirage, And Here's Why the Data Shows It

MarketDash Editorial Team
10 days ago
Bitcoin's famous four-year cycle is under fire from analysts who say the pattern is built on statistical illusions, cherry-picked data, and a sample size far too small to prove anything meaningful about future price movements.

The Halving Narrative Meets Statistical Reality

The four-year cycle has become gospel in crypto circles, but new analysis suggests it's more folklore than fact. The core problem? Markets don't wait for events they already know about. Bitcoin halvings are scheduled years in advance, which means traders price them in continuously rather than reacting in neat four-year intervals.

Think about it this way: if you know your neighbor is going to move out in exactly two years, you don't suddenly react when moving day arrives. You've been thinking about it the whole time. That's how efficient markets work, and Bitcoin has become efficient enough that predetermined events lose their shock value.

Four Data Points Don't Make a Pattern

Here's where the statistics get uncomfortable for cycle believers. Bitcoin's entire price history contains exactly four of these supposed cycles. Four. In any legitimate statistical analysis, that's not a sample size, it's an anecdote. Treating four observations as proof of a repeating pattern creates what looks like a reliable framework where none actually exists.

The critique goes deeper. With enough backtesting across thousands of potential timeframes, some periods will appear statistically significant purely by chance. This is the multiple testing problem, and it's why data scientists are so careful about distinguishing real signals from statistical noise. Many cycle proponents, perhaps without realizing it, cherry-pick the periods that look cyclical while quietly ignoring the rest. The result is a false sense of predictability that evaporates under scrutiny.

When Models Break, New Ones Appear

Survivorship bias compounds the issue. Remember PlanB's Stock-to-Flow model? It gained massive popularity when price happened to align with its forecasts, then spectacularly failed in later periods. As those models break down, new ones emerge to take their place, creating the illusion that the cycle persists even as the actual predictions keep shifting. It's like claiming you have a reliable weather forecasting method but changing the formula every time it rains unexpectedly.

The Market Has Changed Beneath Our Feet

Critics also point to non-stationarity, which is a fancy way of saying Bitcoin's statistical behavior changes over time. The market that existed in 2009 bears almost no resemblance to today's ecosystem. Liquidity, derivatives structure, institutional participation, regulatory landscape, and miner economics have all evolved dramatically. A pattern observed during Bitcoin's early low-liquidity era has little reason to apply to its current market structure.

As market regimes shift, any model built on outdated parameters rapidly loses predictive power. This makes the four-year cycle particularly vulnerable to structural change. You can't use a map from 2009 to navigate 2025.

The Art of Making Any Chart Look Cyclical

Most visual cycle charts rely on curve fitting, and here's where it gets almost artistic. Analysts can adjust log scales, trendline angles, smoothing functions, and starting points to make nearly any upward-trending asset appear cyclical. When price deviates from the prediction, the cycle is often redrawn rather than abandoned. This makes the hypothesis non-falsifiable, which in scientific terms means it's not actually a hypothesis at all.

Chicago-based attorney and Bitcoin advocate Joe Carlasare captured the sentiment in a recent post on X, urging traders to "free your mind" of four-year narratives and focus instead on actual price structure and liquidity dynamics.

What the Charts Actually Show Right Now

Bitcoin is attempting to stabilize after defending support at the $86,700 area, which aligns with the 0.382 Fibonacci retracement of the prior rally. Buyers have pushed price back above $91,500, though the rebound remains corrective while BTC trades below the 20-day and 50-day EMAs at $93,200 and $100,500.

The broader structure remains capped by the descending channel that has rejected every rally since the $124,000 peak. A break above the $93,800 to $97,000 resistance band is needed to confirm momentum rotation. Failure to reclaim the 0.5 and 0.618 retracement levels keeps downside targets open toward $86,700 and $81,900.

Short-term indicators show improving momentum, but traders are viewing the move as relief until BTC closes decisively above the EMA cluster near $100,500. In other words, the price action is doing what price action does, regardless of where we are in some mythical four-year cycle.