2026-01-08 08:29:25

2026 has arrived, and the crypto market is quietly changing.

A question that more and more people are asking: why do halving, liquidity, and other old tricks seem to be less effective now?

Honestly, over the past few years, the concept of "four-year bull and bear cycles" has been particularly useful. Halving dates, inflows and outflows of funds, explosive emotions, sharp price drops... this theory has been validated countless times and has "fixed" the thinking of many market participants. But after 2025, this model started to show problems.

Have you noticed—before key moments, the market no longer exhibits the extreme emotional swings it used to? During adjustments, there are no full liquidations across the board. Those "bull market initiation signals" frequently fail. Instead, we see ranges of oscillation, differentiated performance across sectors, and slow price increases.

This is not that the market has become "boring," but that the **operating logic is changing**.

The cycle model worked very well originally because it was supported by highly consistent capital behavior—similar risk appetites, similar holding periods, and comparable sensitivity to price movements. But entering 2026, the situation is different. Different asset types are starting to price themselves independently, large funds, retail investors, and institutions are moving at different paces, and the overall market synchronization is decreasing.

The cycle, which once "determined direction," is gradually becoming a background factor that only "influences rhythm." This means we need to rethink how we view this market.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

10 Likes

Reward
10
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GhostAddressMiner

· 01-09 22:14

On-chain data has long shown that the rhythm is off. The abnormal movement patterns of those dormant wallets no longer match. The dispersed pattern of early coin-holding addresses explains everything. Institutional entry has disrupted the synchronization. To put it simply, large holders are starting to act independently, and retail investors' risk appetites are also diverging. This wave is a structural shift in capital migration, and I should have seen through it earlier.

View OriginalReply0

GreenCandleCollector

· 01-08 13:02

Haha, the old cycle theory finally got exposed. Wait, does that mean my previous bottom-fishing timing was all wrong... This logic sounds comfortable, but can it really make money? The sector differentiation is indeed felt, but how can retail investors keep up? It feels like big institutions are quietly harvesting profits. No wonder so many people lost money this year; it turns out the game rules have changed. Wake up, everyone, the halving myth is dead.

View OriginalReply0

WalletInspector

· 01-08 08:53

Wait, does this mean the strategy of making money through halving is completely outdated? --- Exactly, things are really different now. Once institutions entered, the landscape completely changed. --- Now I understand why my cycle indicators have been failing recently, damn it. --- So what should retail investors do now? Going their own way, right? --- The staggered capital rhythm sounds pretty scary, but doesn't that also mean more opportunities? --- Finally someone said it out loud. I’ve long thought that the four-year cycle was too old. --- Sector differentiation trends are actually quite normal, just that everyone didn’t notice it before. --- Those who made money from halving must be feeling pretty miserable now, haha. --- A slow rise doesn’t sound very explosive; this bull market pattern is a bit disappointing. --- Can institutions keep the same rhythm as retail investors? This should have been changed long ago.

View OriginalReply0

StakoorNeverSleeps

· 01-08 08:40

That's so true, the old tricks really don't work anymore.

View OriginalReply0

FastLeaver

· 01-08 08:32

To be honest, the old cycle theory has indeed been proven wrong. The halving narrative now sounds a bit awkward, and the flow of funds has indeed become more complicated. Different assets are playing their own games, and the pace between retail and institutional investors simply doesn't match, which is the real problem.

View OriginalReply0

SmartMoneyWallet

· 01-08 08:29

Asynchronous funds and cycle failures have been evident for a long time. On-chain data shows that whale holding periods are lengthening, while retail investors are frequently cutting losses. It's no wonder they can't be synchronized.

View OriginalReply0