Every Bitcoin cycle in living memory has followed a rough rhythm: halving → 12–18 months of accumulation → parabolic run to a new all-time high → 70–85% drawdown → repeat. That rhythm has been so reliable that entire trading firms and newsletter businesses have been built around it.

In April 2026, with Bitcoin trading in the mid-$70,000s and the current halving epoch now past its halfway mark, an increasingly loud group of institutional voices is arguing the rhythm has been broken. Bitwise CIO Matt Hogan, JPMorgan strategists, Fundstrat's Tom Lee, and parts of the Bitcoin Policy Institute community have all published variations of the same thesis: institutional adoption has absorbed the four-year cycle and replaced it with something slower, smoother, and less dramatic.

The purists — Benjamin Cowen most prominently — still think the cycle is intact and that a classic parabolic phase is just late. This analysis lays out both sides.

Where we actually are in the cycle

Bitcoin's fifth halving occurred on April 19, 2024, cutting the block subsidy from 6.25 BTC to 3.125 BTC. As of April 19, 2026, we are exactly two years past the halving — the halfway point of epoch 5 — with the next halving pencilled in for April 12, 2028.

Three data points define the picture:

  • Price is up only about 15% since the halving two years ago. At the same point in the 2020–2024 cycle, Bitcoin was already more than 350% above its halving price.
  • Inflation has fallen below 1% at 3.125 BTC per block. The "scarcity shock" that supposedly drives every cycle is smaller than ever in percentage terms.
  • US spot Bitcoin ETFs collectively hold close to 1.3 million BTC — roughly $117.86 billion AUM — nearly double what they held 12 months after launch.

In other words, scarcity is no longer the marginal variable. Flows are.

The Hogan / JPMorgan thesis in one paragraph

Matt Hogan's argument, echoed in JPMorgan research and by Tom Lee on television, runs roughly as follows: on any given day in 2026, ETFs, corporate treasuries and sovereign wealth funds move more bitcoin than miners produce. Since the marginal buyer no longer has to price against a shrinking flow of new supply — the flow of new demand has become the dominant driver — the halving's influence on the price function has faded. What we are seeing instead is a long institutional accumulation curve with shallower drawdowns, lower volatility, and less-explosive upside than retail-driven cycles.

This is not the same as saying Bitcoin is no longer scarce. It is saying that scarcity has stopped being the story.

The evidence for a dead cycle

Several data points support the institutional thesis.

1. Drawdowns are shallower

Bitcoin's worst drawdown in this cycle so far was from roughly $126,000 in October 2025 to about $60,000 in early February 2026 — a ~52% fall. That is painful, but historically mild. Prior cycles featured 75–85% bear markets from peak to trough.

2. Time-to-new-high is longer

In 2020–2021, Bitcoin broke its prior all-time high roughly 11 months after the halving. In 2024–2025 it took closer to 18 months, and the marginal breakout over the prior $73K ATH was modest and short-lived. This cycle's ATH of ~$126K was only about 72% above the prior cycle's ATH, versus historical multiples of 3–5x.

3. Volatility is structurally lower

Realized 30-day BTC volatility has spent most of 2026 in the 2–4% range, down from the 4–7% regime that characterized 2018–2022. Options markets imply the same: the implied-vol term structure has flattened, and skew is less asymmetric.

4. ETF flows dwarf miner issuance

At 3.125 BTC per block and roughly 144 blocks per day, miners produce about 450 BTC a day — roughly $33 million at current prices. US spot ETFs have routinely traded more than $1 billion of Bitcoin in a single session. The supply-shock thesis has been quantitatively overwhelmed.

5. Correlations have changed

Bitcoin's rolling 90-day correlation with the Nasdaq has drifted higher and become more stable. The correlation with gold has risen meaningfully this year, especially during Strait of Hormuz headlines. Both patterns are consistent with Bitcoin behaving more like a macro asset and less like a retail-driven alt.

The evidence the cycle is alive

The cycle-is-alive camp has its own serious arguments.

1. Halving effects are lagged

Historically the biggest price gains of a cycle have arrived 12–24 months after the halving. We are inside that window now. An argument that the cycle is broken because price is only up 15% at the halfway point has been made — and wrong — in every prior cycle.

2. Liquidity cycles are real

The 2017 and 2021 tops both lined up with Federal Reserve tightening cycles and commodity-price peaks. The current macro regime — Fed cutting into a soft growth environment, deficits expanding, reserve diversification accelerating — maps cleanly onto a liquidity-driven 2026 top call. Cowen and others think a final blow-off is still possible in Q4 2026 or Q1 2027.

3. The four-year rhythm is multi-factor, not mono-causal

Supporters of the classic cycle argue that it was never just about the halving. It was halving + retail attention + new tech narrative + leverage cycle + macro liquidity all synchronizing. Those same factors can still synchronize.

4. Shallower drawdowns ≠ no cycle

A cycle can persist even if its amplitude compresses. The 2013 and 2017 cycles had very different shapes, and so did 2021. A 50% drawdown inside a bull market is still a cycle — just a less frightening one.

The middle view: cycle compressed, not canceled

There is a synthesis that is gaining traction among more moderate analysts, including parts of Grayscale's research team in its 2026 Digital Asset Outlook: Dawn of the Institutional Era. The synthesis goes like this:

Halvings still matter on long horizons — they define terminal supply and anchor the stock-to-flow story — but in any given two-year window, institutional flows, ETF rebalances and corporate treasury decisions dominate. What used to look like a sharp four-year sine wave is becoming a slower secular uptrend with smaller cyclical wobbles on top. The halving is still the backbone of Bitcoin's long-run monetary property; it is just no longer the timing tool it used to be.

If this middle view is correct, the practical implications for allocators are significant: position sizing should be less sensitive to the halving calendar, drawdown protection strategies (covered calls, put spreads) become more attractive, and the opportunity cost of waiting for a classic 80% bear market bottom rises.

What to watch next

Three catalysts will decide which side of this debate looks smarter by year-end.

  • ETF flow regime. If monthly net inflows stay positive through mid-2026 and accelerate into year-end, the institutional thesis gets a huge tailwind. If flows stall or reverse — as they partially did in early April — the cycle bulls regain credibility.
  • Macro liquidity. A Fed cutting cycle coinciding with a deficit-driven expansion is historically bullish for risk assets and gold-proxies, including Bitcoin. A surprise tightening impulse would pull that leg out.
  • Volatility regime. A sustained break above 5% realized vol would suggest retail is back. A continued grind in the 2–3% zone is the institutional story in action.

FAQ

Is the four-year Bitcoin cycle officially dead? No one can call it "officially" dead until we get through 2027 and 2028 without a classic parabola and classic bear. What is clear is that the shape of this cycle is materially different from 2016–2017 or 2020–2021, and the institutional thesis explains that difference better than the pure-halving model.

What is the Matt Hogan thesis? Bitwise's Matt Hogan argues that institutional adoption — ETFs, corporate treasuries, sovereign buyers — has absorbed the volatility and timing signal that the halving used to provide. Bitcoin in his view is transitioning to a macro asset on a long accumulation curve, which implies shallower drawdowns, less explosive tops, and higher long-run prices.

Should I change my investment strategy because of this? If you relied on the halving as a market-timing tool, you probably should reduce that reliance. If you held Bitcoin as a long-term allocation and ignored the cycle, the new regime actually suits your approach. The prudent response for most investors is to cost-average, size positions to risk tolerance, and not anchor to calendar-based price targets.

Why is price up only 15% two years after the halving? Two years past the halving, the supply-side shock has fully been priced in, but the demand-side has gone through a large, fast institutional absorption phase followed by a long digestion phase. The result is a price that has moved much less violently than in prior cycles — for better (less downside) and for worse (less upside so far).

Does this make Bitcoin a better or worse investment? It arguably makes Bitcoin a more investable asset for larger pools of capital — which is the whole point of maturing into a macro asset — while making it less attractive for traders who depend on extreme volatility. The answer depends on your mandate.

Sources

Disclaimer: This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment, legal or tax advice. Digital assets are highly volatile and can lose value quickly. Do your own research and consult a licensed advisor before making any investment decision.

À lire aussi