CZ recently proposed a quite disruptive idea—that the "four-year halving curse" that has been in play for over a decade might no longer be effective.

What kind of super cycle is Bitcoin heading into? Sounds pretty mysterious, so let’s first review how the old rules worked.

Everyone is familiar with the past pattern: roughly every four years, miners’ rewards are halved directly, causing a sharp drop in new coin issuance. What happens next? In 2012, 2016, and 2020, within a year to a year and a half after each halving, BTC would surge like it was on steroids, then enter a long cold winter. This cycle pattern is as precise as clockwork.

But the concept of a "super cycle" is different. It’s not about short-term spikes that quickly fade, but a prolonged battle—where the top isn’t reached and crashed within two years after halving, but rather a sustained ascent over a longer time frame. There may be pullbacks along the way, but the overall trend remains upward. This kind of movement usually requires some fundamental, structural changes to support it.

So why does CZ think the old rules might become invalid?

The answer may lie in changes in the composition of market participants. Think about it—used to be mainly retail investors and tech enthusiasts involved in crypto. Now? Institutional capital is pouring in, and traditional financial giants are actively entering the crypto space. When market players shift from grassroots to Wall Street, the game rules naturally have to change.

Could this institutionalization and mainstream adoption truly push Bitcoin into that legendary super cycle?