Galaxy In-Depth Study: Is the Four-Year Cycle of Bitcoin Still Valid?

Author: Alex Thorn

Translation: Jiahui, ChainCatcher

Throughout Bitcoin's 17-year development, its price has always moved within long-term cycles of ups and downs. Approximately every four years, it climbs to a frenzy peak, then experiences a painful decline to a bottom, before restarting its recovery.

This rhythm has historically been anchored by the halving every four years, which directly halves the regular new supply. Although the influence of consecutive halvings is waning, and market predictions of "super cycles" are rampant, empirical data once again shows that the four-year cycle pattern remains intact.

This report aims to explore these fluctuations and a pattern emerging in Bitcoin's modern history: each cycle's amplitude becomes more subdued than the last.

The October 2025 peak is the calmest top in Bitcoin history, with subsequent declines also unusually gentle. Given such restraint at the high point, should we expect the eventual cycle bottom to be similarly shallow? If so, where might that bottom roughly be?

This report assumes that the current retracement bottom has not yet arrived and provides data to support this hypothesis. Data also suggests that the calmer top in October 2025 could lead to a higher cycle bottom.

Historical comparisons indicate that the current retracement's baseline bottom is between $40k and $46k, roughly occurring between now and Q4 2026. (This baseline scenario is for illustration only. Actual results may vary significantly.)

The key point is that this report relies entirely on market data, on-chain data, and time cycle analysis. Our predicted cycle bottom range does not incorporate or depend on assessments of external events (such as regulation, market, or geopolitical developments) or their timing or impact.

Is Bitcoin's "four-year cycle" still valid?

Each Bitcoin cycle involves a process: from the previous low, passing through the halving, reaching a top, then falling back to the next low. Here are four cycles, including the current one:

The bottom of the current cycle has not yet formed. Based on the report date of June 9, 2026, its retracement magnitude and elapsed time are "so far" data points.

Note the two principles this report is based on: First, the percentage decline from peak to trough in each cycle is decreasing (from 85% to 84%, then to 77%); second, historically, about 12 to 13 months after each top, a bottom appears. The current cycle is only eight months past the most recent top.

Index comparison shows that the top in October 2025 appears particularly restrained compared to previous cycle tops. As a result, the market's average price paid for holdings (the realized price, or "cost basis") is unusually close to the all-time high (ATH), reaching 43.7% of the previous ATH.

In past cycles, this ratio was typically only one-third or less.

This is a crucial data point: if a sell-off of the same magnitude as past bear market ends occurs, this time the market will stabilize at a much higher dollar level. Comparing the timing, amplitude, and on-chain indicators of cycles, the current retracement may bottom within the following range:

All the above price levels and analysis in this report point to our view: the bottom of this cycle has not yet been identified. Few of the indicators for cycle bottoms have been triggered in history; from a time perspective, the current decline is still shorter than past retracements; and once genuine panic occurs, the cost basis itself will also decrease.

Our core argument is: empirical evidence shows that the four-year cycle remains valid, but its amplitude has shrunk. A calmer top has raised the lower bound but has not eliminated it.

How to accurately identify cycle tops and bottoms with data?

Capturing the top or bottom precisely as they form is nearly impossible, or at least extremely difficult; but in hindsight, everything becomes clear. Therefore, our approach is: list the conditions that have appeared at previous cycle tops and bottoms, and see how many are currently present.

To establish an indicator system for evaluating past cycle highs and lows, we examined five types of evidence: valuation (relative to holder's purchase cost, is the current price high or low?), profit-taking (are holders selling in strength or capitulating in weakness?), miners (are Bitcoin producers thriving or under pressure?), trend (how far is the price deviating from its long-term mean?), and sentiment (greed or fear?).

Applying this five-dimensional perspective to both ends of the current cycle yields a clear picture: Bitcoin's volatility amplitude is shrinking. Each top's euphoria is less intense than the previous, and subsequent crashes are becoming milder.

If this amplitude "contraction" truly exists and holds at both ends, it can provide valuable information about the expected cycle bottom during this retracement. From this, we can estimate a range for where Bitcoin might bottom.

This analysis requires us to first identify indicators and establish benchmarks to recognize cycle tops and bottoms. We apply the same scoring method to both ends: comparing current levels to those reached at each past top and bottom.

Backtesting cycle tops

The top is real but also the calmest in history. At the October high, only two of the 11 classic warning signals reached a very mild pre-top level, barely touching the threshold.

The clearest valuation indicator, the ratio of market value to realized value (MVRV, measuring how high the price is relative to the average price paid by holders), peaked at only 2.29, whereas at the three previous tops, MVRV ranged from 2.93 to 5.91.

The entire "greed" indicator group recorded the lowest cycle top reading ever, and the Pi cycle top (a timing signal that previously predicted the last three tops within days) did not trigger at all—an unprecedented occurrence in Bitcoin history.

However, in terms of timing, it is textbook: this top occurred on the 1,062nd day after the previous low, precisely aligning with the peaks in 2017 and 2021.

The turning point is that genuine euphoria appeared about 18 months earlier, around the time the US introduced a Bitcoin futures ETF. Even as enthusiasm waned afterward, prices continued to rise. Looking back, this seems more like institutional buying rather than retail frenzy that triggers a top explosion.

Below is the complete top indicator table for the current cycle (anchored to the October 2025 new high).

Out of 11 signals: two confirmed, two partially confirmed (at least 85% threshold), and seven not triggered. The confirmed signals (RSI and SOPR) only just crossed their weakest thresholds set in 2021, reaching peaks in 2023 and 2024, not at the October 2025 high.

Crucially, despite the cycle clock reaching the scheduled time, the Pi cycle top signal has not triggered (since it is based on calendar days rather than the degree of euphoria, these two are treated separately).

"Signs of past tops" are the range of the 2013, 2017, and 2021 cycle tops; the threshold is set at the least euphoric of the three (the 2021 peak), making it the easiest to cross. "Cycle peak" refers to the most extreme readings of each indicator in the current cycle and their months of occurrence. Reserve risk and Pi ratio are measured on our internal scales.

Estimating cycle bottoms

During this retracement, only 4 of 13 bottom signals have been touched, three of which are weaker indicators: fear sentiment, trend reaching bottom range, and the first breach of the 200-week moving average.

The fourth signal reversed in early June, also the first warning from the miner side: Hash Ribbons showed a recovery crossover. This occurs when the 30-day average hash rate recovers above the 60-day average after a period of capitulation, historically signaling a bottom.

The strongest signals marking a true bottom (price falling below cost basis, overall holder losses, sustained capitulation, deep panic washout) have not yet appeared. The current −51% decline remains milder than previous cycle lows of −77% to −85%, and shallower than the mid-2021 decline of −53%.

But the pace has changed. Measuring at the same point in the cycle (about eight months after the peak, around 242 days), recent declines have pushed the current drop slightly below the levels seen in 2013–2015 cycles (which experienced a relief rebound with a −48% decline).

Thus, it is no longer the shallowest retracement on the chart (it was for most of this retracement). The 2017–2018 and 2021–2022 cycles experienced much deeper declines (~−68%) at this stage. According to the cycle clock, the low window of the bear market is likely to open around late 2026.

Each curve tracks the decline from a cycle top, aligned to day 0. Around day 242 (dashed line), the current cycle (orange, −51%) has just slightly dipped below the levels of the 2013–2015 cycles (−48%), making it no longer the shallowest retracement.

The other two past cycles are close to −68% at this stage. All current levels are well above the current price (green band indicating past bear market bottoms).

Below is the full scorecard of bottom indicators for this retracement, which have previously signaled cycle bottoms.

Out of 13 target indicators, 4 have been touched, 2 are approaching, and 7 remain untouched.

To illustrate the significance of these bottom signals, the table lists when they were triggered in past cycles and compares to today.

Comparing these 13 signals across the last three cycles reveals a clear pattern: at every past bear market low, all 13 indicators eventually entered the bottom zone, with the only difference being timing—some triggered early, others later.

Today, only 4 are touched, with the only miner-side indicator (Hash Ribbons) triggered recently. (A notable difference is that this time, the Hash Ribbons reversal seems to have occurred before the bottom, unlike in past cycles where it lagged behind. This may be due to external effects from Bitcoin miners shifting toward AI, a phenomenon not seen in previous cycles.)

The numbers in the cycle cells indicate how many days before (−) or after (+) the cycle's low the indicator's extremum occurred within a 180-day window. Hash Ribbons refer to the recovery crossover; cycle clock refers to the 12th month after the top.

Each indicator has been triggered at the lows of the past three cycles, and the signals indicate whether they appeared early or late. The current cycle's low has not yet arrived, so the table only shows whether each indicator has been checked off since the October 2025 high.

Higher highs at the top, higher lows at the bottom

Before drawing any conclusions, let's establish a fact that underpins the rest of this report: Bitcoin's volatility at both ends has already narrowed.

The euphoria at the top has been cooling each cycle (MVRV at 5.91, 4.72, 2.93, 2.29), while the bottoms have been rising each cycle, from 0.56 in 2015 to 0.69 in 2018, and 0.75 in 2022.

In other words, the gap between the most overvalued and undervalued points in each cycle is shrinking. The prices at crash points tell the same story: declines of −85%, −84%, −77%, with this cycle currently at only −51%.

The ratios of price to cost basis (MVRV) at each cycle's top and bottom are converging toward "fair value" (1.0). Data suggests that this cycle has likely not yet bottomed (hollow diamond is the deepest reading so far). This describes the cycle pattern but does not guarantee where the bottom will be.

Cooling tops and rising bottoms describe three completed cycles, not a natural law. They do not necessarily mean the next low will be shallower.

But they allow us to pose a precise question and give an exact answer: if a bottom behaves like past bottoms, how much of the dollar decline is actually determined by the euphoria at the top?

Raising the price floor

MVRV is simply the current price divided by the on-chain cost basis. Conversely, the cost basis is the historical peak divided by the MVRV at the top. So, the lower the top MVRV, the closer the cost basis is to the peak.

Since October's top was the calmest ever (MVRV at 2.29), the cost basis ultimately settled at 43.7% of the historical peak (compared to 34.2%, 21.2%, and 16.9% at 2017, 2021, and 2013 tops). Calm tops do not lower the lower bound; under unchanged conditions, they actually bring the cost basis closer to the peak, raising the lower limit.

The proportion of the cycle's all-time high that the cost basis accounts for has been rising, reaching 44% by 2025, because each top has been more subdued. The annotations on each bar show the typical dollar decline corresponding to a bottom formation in that cycle.

Fixing the bottom performance (assuming each cycle bottoms at the same MVRV) shows that dollar declines in each cycle are shrinking, purely because the starting point (cost basis) is higher. The table below demonstrates this without any prediction:

Each cell indicates: if the cycle bottoms at the MVRV in that column, the decline calculated relative to the cycle's specific ratio of cost basis to peak.

The bottom performance in the same row is identical; only the top's calmness varies. A typical traditional bottom (MVRV of 0.70) in 2013 implied an −88% decline, but in this cycle, only −69%. This isolates the impact of the top, using arithmetic rather than asserting that calm tops necessarily lead to higher bottoms.

Where is the bottom this time?

The bottom is not pinpointed by a single percentage but relative to two key anchors: the cost basis and the 200-week moving average (200w MA). The latter has long served as Bitcoin's support line.

Using these anchors, past bear market lows have consistently fallen below both: on average, about −33% below the cost basis (deepest at −44% in 2015), and about −14% below the four-year moving average.

Two points are noteworthy:

First, the gap below the cost basis narrows each cycle (−44%, −31%, −25%), mirroring the contraction on the top side.

Second, current prices have not yet reached that zone. Even after a 51% decline, Bitcoin's price remains 14% above the cost basis (which has never been broken in this cycle), and only 1.5% below the four-year moving average. Using the past cycle's measuring sticks, the bottom has not yet arrived.

In previous bear markets, lows fell below the blue (cost basis) and purple (four-year MA) lines. Past lows were well below both; today, the price remains above the cost basis and just slightly below the 200-week MA, with the gap below the cost basis shrinking each cycle.

The anchors and the arithmetic lead to the same conclusion. Converting past gaps to today's anchors points to the same region: a decline below the cost basis of −25% to −44%, roughly $30k to $40k; the gap below the four-year MA spans about $41k to $62k.

This indicates the true bottom is likely below current prices but well above the 75–85% declines of past cycles.

Converting the arithmetic into price scenarios, based on the current $53k cost basis, yields not a single figure but a set of scenarios; let's examine the middle one.

Our baseline scenario assumes the bottom simply continues the trend of approaching fair value each cycle (MVRV of 0.75 to 0.86), roughly $40k to $46k. If a deeper, more severe washout occurs similar to 2018 or 2022 (MVRV of 0.56 to 0.70), prices could fall to $30k–$37k.

If the result is shallower, with stable buyers absorbing declines near the cost basis (MVRV of 0.95 to 1.01), prices would be around $51k–$54k; merely touching the rising four-year MA ($62k) would imply about a −51% decline. (This is for illustration only; actual results may vary significantly.)

Various scenarios plotted against price. The cost basis and the rising four-year MA (which historically guide bottoms) are far above the old "75–85% decline" zone (gray, deprecated).

Color bands translate past bottom formations into today's dollar levels. These levels assume a "bottom has formed" premise, not that a bottom is imminent. For illustration only; actual results may vary significantly.

The real point is that all this overturns old rules: a −77% to −85% decline (the precise yardstick from past cycles) would place this cycle's bottom at $19k–$29k.

But this rule double-counts the impact of a calm top: the extreme declines of 75–85% are based on highly euphoric peaks; this cycle's peak was mild and close to the cost basis. Applying the deep decline ratios designed for extreme euphoria to this mild peak will distort the bottom forecast.

In this entire picture, the cost basis acts like a rising tide beneath, most clearly indicating that the "lower limit" is moving.

Over the past year, as high-price buyers in this cycle have raised the average purchase price, the cost basis has climbed from about $47k to nearly $56k by the end of 2025 (a 20% increase). This ascent is the main reason the current bottom is far higher than old rules suggested.

But as some of the 2024–2025 holdings are lost in downturns and turned over, realized prices have fallen about 5%, back to around $53k.

By late 2026, the realized price (the cost basis) will be a key variable in determining the bottom: a calm, orderly decline could stabilize it around $45k; a true panic could push it further down, dragging the overall forecast lower.

Why do we say the bottom can also move?

The cost basis is reflexive. It appears as a floor, but it is built from the last transaction prices of the holdings. During a genuine sell-off, losses cause the average to decline, pulling the "floor" down with it. It is not a fixed red line but a moving target.

This is the biggest limitation to the argument for raising the lower bound. Buffer space is thin: today’s price is only about 14% above the cost basis (MVRV at 1.14), and this cycle has never fallen below it.

If a sell-off reduces the cost basis by 10%, 20%, or 30%, a typical bottom could fall from about $40k to roughly $36k, $32k, or $28k, returning to a normal historical range.

Maintaining the bottom shape while allowing the cost basis to decline during sell-offs implies the implied bottom price could slide from about $40k back to around $28k, re-entering the normal historical zone (amber). A calm top raises the lower limit, but genuine panic can erode part of that gain.

The stable, price-insensitive buying from spot ETFs and corporate treasuries—absent in past cycles—tends to support a higher bottom. But it can also buffer declines or amplify them.

The nature of these funds means that digital asset treasury companies (DAT) and corporations tend to buy on rallies rather than sell at the bottom; ETF funds have recently been net outflows in 2026. During a deep sell-off, fund redemptions may force forced sales rather than absorption of sell pressure.

The 2022 cycle saw the largest forced sell-off in crypto history, with only a −77% decline. So, "this time with lower leverage" may not be reliable. (These are auxiliary arguments, not the core thesis.)

The higher lower bound and the risk of erosion during panic are two sides of the same coin: this cycle's starting point for the cost basis is higher, but in a market capitulation, it will also decline. That’s why we focus more on the range than a single number.

Data indicating retracement trajectory

Our analysis clearly points to how deep the retracement might go and how long it could take.

A calmer top has raised the cost basis to 43.7% of the all-time high, making the dollar decline mechanism more moderate than in any previous cycle.

We believe the rule "Bitcoin historically declines 75–85%, bottoming at $19k–$29k" is outdated as a literal price bottom.

Even if a deep washout similar to past cycles occurs, it corresponds to a much higher number. Our more severe washout scenarios are still above that zone, with the baseline scenario around $40k.

Comparing past cycle indicators and timing data suggests the bottom has likely not yet appeared. Only 4 of 13 bottom indicators are triggered, and the current retracement is only about 8 months old, whereas history shows bottoms at 12–13 months (and the cost basis itself will also decline).

Several signals indicate genuine deep washouts: price falling below the cost basis, overall holder losses, sustained capitulation, breaching the four-year MA, and severe bear market declines. If these signals reverse at much higher levels than in the past, it confirms the shrinking amplitude at both ends.

Conversely, if a full capitulation sell-off occurs as expected, the calm top merely delays pain without easing it. In either case, the arithmetic of the cost basis shows that the starting point for this judgment is well above the levels assumed by the old four-year cycle rule.

This is a descriptive study about how a calm cycle top shapes the arithmetic logic of the cycle bottom, not necessarily a price forecast. The price levels we set are based on historical data, comparing current retracement relative to the present cost basis (which itself varies).

Appendix A: Chart Library

We include a large collection of themed auxiliary charts. The first set frames the cycle; the second set details the complete bottom checklist. In each indicator chart, the shaded band shows the range reached at past lows in 2015, 2018, and 2022; the orange mark indicates the latest reading.

Cycle diagrams

Price and its cycle top. On a logarithmic scale, Bitcoin’s entire price history marks the past three cycle tops (red) and the October 2025 high (orange).

Price and its cycle bottom. The same historical period, marking reference lows: the bear market bottoms of 2015, 2018, 2022 (red), and the COVID crash and mid-2021 retracement (gray).

Cycle clock. How many days after the previous low (circle) and halving (square) each top arrives. The October 2025 top falls precisely within the historical window.

Euphoria arrives early. The valuation peaks of the cycle appeared in early 2024, around the launch of spot ETFs; on-chain enthusiasm then waned, but prices rose another ~70% until the October 2025 peak.

The signal that never triggered. The Pi cycle top previously predicted the peaks in 2013, 2017, and 2021 within days (asterisk). In this cycle, the trigger condition was never met—an unprecedented event.

Bottom indicator analysis

MVRV. Price relative to the holder's average cost basis. Past bottoms pushed it well below 1.0; this cycle’s low so far is at 1.14.

NUPL. The proportion of market value in unrealized profit. Past bottoms drove it below zero (overall loss); today, it remains positive.

MVRV Z-Score. Standardized version of MVRV. Past bottoms recorded deep negative values; this cycle, it is still positive.

Mayer Multiple. Price divided by 200-day moving average. It has reached the bottom range, one of the most bottom-like trend signals.

Price vs. four-year MA. The 200-week MA is Bitcoin’s most durable support. Past bottoms touched or fell below it; now, the price has dipped below it for the first time in this cycle.

SOPR. The average profit/loss of coins moved on the day. Past bottoms kept it below 1.0 for months (indicating capitulation); this cycle, it only briefly touched below.

Net realized profit/loss. Daily locked-in profit (+) or loss (−), scaled by market size. The extreme loss-driven sell-offs that mark bottoms have not yet appeared.

Puell Multiple. Miner revenue pressure indicator. Past miner capitulation bottoms ranged from 0.30 to 0.41; this cycle’s low (~0.44) is close but not yet reached.

Hash Ribbons. Hash rate momentum. Below 1.0 indicates miner capitulation; in 2026, it has persistently fallen below this threshold.

Fear and Greed Index. Our proprietary 0–100 sentiment indicator, showing the degree of fear during this decline, deeper than past bottoms. It is the only indicator that has already definitively triggered.

Appendix B: Glossary

Bitcoin Cycle. The roughly four-year rhythm of Bitcoin, involving years of rising to new highs, sharp declines to lows, and long recovery phases. Each cycle typically revolves around halving events.

Halving. Approximately every four years, the rate of new Bitcoin issuance is cut in half. This is a fixed protocol feature, historically serving as the anchor for each cycle.

All-Time High (ATH). The highest daily closing price in Bitcoin’s history. The current cycle’s ATH is $124,824 on October 6, 2025.

Retracement. The percentage decline from a peak. A −50% retracement means the price has fallen by half from its all-time high.

Cost Basis, also called realized price. The average price paid for Bitcoin in the market, estimated by summing the last on-chain transfer prices of each coin and dividing by total coins. It is the key anchor in this report, also called the network’s cost basis.

Market Cap. The total USD value of all Bitcoin at current prices (price × circulating supply).

Realized Market Cap. The total USD value of all Bitcoin based on the last transfer price, not current price. The realized price is the realized market cap divided by the total coins.

MVRV Ratio. Market cap divided by realized cap, equal to current price divided by the network’s cost basis. Above 1.0 indicates profitability on average; below 1.0 indicates loss. It is the core metric throughout this report.

MVRV Z-Score. The standardized version of MVRV, making extreme high and low points comparable across different price eras.

NUPL (Net Unrealized Profit/Loss). The proportion of market value in unrealized profit. High positive values indicate greed near tops; below zero (overall loss) often signals despair at bottoms.

SOPR (Spent Output Profit Ratio). The average profit/loss of coins moved on the day. Above 1.0, coins are being sold profitably; below 1.0, holders are capitulating (a bottom signal).

Mayer Multiple. Price divided by 200-day moving average. A simple indicator measuring how far the price deviates from medium-term trend.

200-day / 200-week Moving Averages. The average closing price over the past 200 days (medium-term trend) or 200 weeks (~4 years, Bitcoin’s most durable support line).

Puell Multiple. The USD value of newly mined Bitcoin divided by its 1-year average, used to measure miner revenue pressure (low) or explosion (high). Named after ARK analyst David Puell.

Reserve Risk. A measure of long-term holders’ confidence relative to price. Presented as a ratio, used comparatively in this report.

Pi Cycle Top. A timing indicator triggered when the 111-day moving average crosses above twice the 350-day moving average. It previously predicted peaks in 2013, 2017, and 2021 within days; it has not triggered in this cycle.

Hash Ribbons. Comparing 30-day and 60-day average hash rate. When the short-term crosses below the long-term, miners capitulate; a recovery crossover historically signals a bottom.

Fear and Greed Index. A proprietary 0–100 sentiment indicator based on on-chain, derivatives, and capital flow data. Low readings indicate extreme fear (near bottom), high readings indicate greed (near top).

RSI (Relative Strength Index). A momentum oscillator between 0 and 100; high readings suggest overbought conditions, often near tops.

Cycle Clock. The number of days from the cycle’s low or halving to the top or bottom. Past three cycle tops occurred about 1,060 days after the previous low; bottoms appear about 12–13 months after the top.

Reflexivity. A concept popularized by George Soros in "Financial Alchemy" (1987), referring to how the measurement scale itself can be affected by market fluctuations. Here, the cost basis appears as a floor but can decline during genuine sell-offs as losses cause the average transaction price to fall. The lower bound is thus a moving target, not a fixed line.