When will Bitcoin bottom out? Analysis of the three major frameworks: Cowen cycle model, MVRV, and ETF capital flows

Every Bitcoin bear market cycle, the market encounters the same question—where is the bottom?

Cycle theorists open historical charts, on-chain analysts monitor realized value curves, institutional investors track daily ETF fund inflows and outflows. Three different frameworks point to different conclusions, yet all diverge at the same time point in 2026. This is not a prediction failure, but a new challenge in an era of abundant information: when too many indicators present simultaneously, how to extract effective judgment logic from the noise?

We will dissect the three most mainstream bottom analysis frameworks in the current market, examining their internal logic, data dependencies, and limitations one by one. The three frameworks are: Benjamin Cowen’s four-year cycle regression model, the on-chain valuation framework based on the MVRV indicator, and the institutional ETF flow reversal observation system.

On June 8, Bitcoin’s MVRV Z-Score dropped to 0.24, approaching the upper bound of the historical green accumulation zone. In the same week, the US spot Bitcoin ETF experienced the largest weekly net outflow since its listing in January 2024, totaling $3.4 billion. Meanwhile, Benjamin Cowen, in his latest cycle analysis, marked October 2026 as the most probable window for bottom formation.

Between hot and cold signals, the three frameworks’ signals are neither unified nor contradictory. Only by understanding the underlying data logic of each framework can one form their own judgment benchmarks amid the intersections and deviations of different models.

Cowen’s Four-Year Cycle Model: Why Point to October 2026?

Benjamin Cowen publicly warned of a top risk in Q4 2025. By 2026, he shifted to analyzing another aspect—the timing window for the bottom.

Cowen’s analysis does not rely on macro narratives or media sentiment; its core argument stems from Bitcoin’s four-year cycle data behavior. He points out that Bitcoin reached its peak on October 6, 2025, during this cycle, while the previous two full cycles’ peaks occurred on days 1059 and 1168 respectively. The current cycle’s top is precisely at day 1162, within the historical range.

Based on this time fit, Cowen extrapolates the subsequent rhythm. The 2018 bear market lasted 12 months from December 2017 to December 2018. The 2022 bear market extended from November 2021 to November 2022, also 12 months. If the cycle pattern continues, counting 12 months from the October 2025 top, October 2026 becomes the natural landing window.

Cowen’s framework considers not only timing but also sets three quantifiable trigger conditions. First, the crossover signal between on-chain profit supply and loss supply—this crossover has occurred before every historical cycle bottom. Second, the MVRV Z-Score falls below zero. Third, Bitcoin’s price drops below both the realized price (about $54,000) and the balance price (about $39,000).

As of June 1, none of these conditions have been triggered. Based on this, Cowen assesses a 75% probability that prices will continue downward into 2026 with new lows, targeting a range of $39,000 to $40,000.

The strength of Cowen’s logic lies in its avoidance of sentiment reliance, viewing price as a natural extension of cycle mathematics. However, he must also face a fact—the four-year halving cycle does not perfectly align with macroeconomic structures and capital flows. When the market shifts from retail dominance to institutional dominance, the timing of bull-bear transitions may no longer be solely locked by halving windows. This is a variable that requires ongoing observation within his framework.

On-Chain MVRV Signal: Why the Nearing of the Historical Bottom Zone Still Doesn’t Confirm the Bottom?

Unlike cycle theory, on-chain indicators do not answer “when,” but rather “how low.” Among all on-chain tools, the MVRV Z-Score (standardized deviation of market value from realized value) is considered one of the most reliable signals near market bottoms.

As of June 8, Bitcoin’s MVRV Z-Score was 0.24, having fallen into the upper boundary of the historical green accumulation zone. This zone has appeared during four major bottom cycles in 2011–2012, 2014, 2018, and 2022, where the Z-Score approached zero or briefly dipped below it, after which a new upward trend typically began.

The basic logic of the MVRV Z-Score is that when market value far exceeds on-chain realized value (the average cost basis of all UTXOs), it indicates overheating; when it approaches or falls below realized value, it suggests undervaluation. Currently, a Z-Score of 0.24 indicates Bitcoin’s overall market cap is approaching the on-chain average holding cost, a classic “chip distribution normalization” signal.

However, a single indicator alone is insufficient to confirm a cycle bottom. More detailed on-chain structure analysis considers the convergence between short-term holder (STH) MVRV and long-term holder (LTH) MVRV. As of now, STH-MVRV is 0.84, LTH-MVRV is 1.29.

Historical data shows that before bottoms in 2015, 2019, and late 2022, there was often a significant narrowing or even reversal of the gap between short- and long-term holder MVRV. This occurs when short-term chips’ average buy-in price falls below long-term holding costs, and long-term chips are sold at a loss, resetting the entire market distribution—entering a new cost basis platform suitable for an upward cycle. Currently, LTHs still hold a 29% unrealized profit margin, indicating that long-term chips have not yet undergone the forced re-pricing at lows.

Cowen’s framework’s MVRV condition (Z-Score below zero) is close to, but not yet triggered by, the underlying data. Meanwhile, confirming the bottom via MVRV-Z depends on deeper convergence of short- and long-term cost structures. This is a typical “indicators are near, conditions are not yet met” situation.

Institutional ETF Flows: What is the Reversal Signal, and When Does It Appear?

ETF fund flows are the newest bottom analysis tool post-2024, making this the most ambiguous boundary within the framework.

From May to early June 2026, US spot Bitcoin ETF experienced the most sustained fund outflows since its listing. As of June 1, the ETF recorded 10 consecutive trading days of net outflows, totaling over $2.97 billion. By the first week of June, weekly net outflows reached $3.4 billion—the largest single-week withdrawal since listing.

However, this data alone does not confirm a “bottom” or “top.” The key question is: are ETFs price setters or trend followers?

Structurally, ETFs amplify sentiment and reflect institutional positions. During bullish phases, ETFs serve as significant marginal buyers. At the October 2025 market peak, ETFs recorded a single-day net inflow of $1.21 billion. During declines, the same channel becomes a major outflow path—early June’s $3.4 billion weekly outflow approaching the largest since listing indicates concentrated selling.

Yet, on June 4, a technical reversal occurred. After 13 consecutive days of net outflows, Bitcoin spot ETFs recorded about $3.05 million in net inflow. While this volume is too small to confirm a trend reversal, it ended a period of over $1 billion in continuous redemptions since mid-May.

Therefore, sustained, multi-day, and sizable net inflows into ETFs could serve as a strong signal of market confidence recovery. But this condition has not yet been met. In other words, ETF flows alone are insufficient for bottom confirmation; they need to be cross-validated with on-chain chip distribution signals. Their role is more as a “confidence thermometer” than a “structural bottom clock.”

Bull-Bear Scenario: What Do the Divergences Among Frameworks Mean?

Currently, the three frameworks produce different, yet not entirely opposing, signals.

Cowen’s cycle model proposes a specific date (October 2026) with a set of quantifiable trigger conditions, with a rigorous logic and high historical fit. However, its underlying assumption—that the four-year cycle is completely independent of macro financial policies, institutional behavior, and macro liquidity—may be affected by structural changes such as ETF inflows, extended institutional holdings, and volatility compression.

The MVRV indicator shows prices approaching valuation zones associated with historical bottoms, but the necessary chip structure reset for confirmation has not yet occurred.

ETF flows are in a “post-peak outflow with slight inflow” observation phase—neither trend reversal nor confirmation. The data neither fully supports nor fully negates the bottom.

This means the market is in a state where “bull and bear scenarios both have logical support.” Bears can cite Cowen’s time window and the three untriggered conditions; bulls can point to the MVRV Z-Score entering the historical accumulation zone and the recent minor ETF inflows as potential trend reversal signals. Both sides’ arguments are data-supported, with no clear falsification.

This divergence is not a failure of indicator systems but a natural misalignment among frameworks operating on different time scales and data natures. The cycle model targets macro structures on a monthly basis; MVRV focuses on mid-cycle valuation mechanisms centered on capital costs; ETF flows reflect high-frequency institutional sentiment. Under the same price level, both bullish and bearish signals can coexist, reflecting sufficient market information.

Conclusion

Each of the three frameworks has irreplaceable analytical logic and boundaries. In practice, Cowen’s cycle model can serve as the primary framework for market structure positioning—offering a long- to medium-term judgment based on historical time series and chip cost conditions. MVRV on-chain indicators help identify valuation zones and chip transition rhythms, especially whether long- and short-term holder cost curves have converged. Institutional ETF flows provide real-time feedback on macro capital dynamics, offering high-frequency insights into sentiment and capital structure.

The most reliable reference is not a single framework but the convergence of multiple signals over a longer time horizon. When Cowen’s three trigger conditions are gradually met, the long-short MVRV gap narrows significantly, and ETF net flows shift from outflows to inflows—when these signals resonate, the market may truly enter a new phase of structural transition.