Scaramucci Predicts Bitcoin Q4 Rally: Analysis of Four-Year Cycle Theory and Market Impact

Regarding the discussion of Bitcoin market cycles, it has always been one of the core narratives in the crypto industry. Recently, Anthony Scaramucci, founder of SkyBridge Capital, reiterated that the four-year cycle theory for Bitcoin remains valid and predicted that the market will experience a new rally in Q4 2026. This view quickly attracted market attention, especially after Bitcoin hit a new all-time high in 2025 and then underwent a deep correction. The debate over whether the “four-year cycle is still effective” has become particularly intense. This article aims to examine the theory from multiple perspectives, combining historical data, current market structure, and macro variables, using Scaramucci’s viewpoint as a starting point.

Scaramucci Reaffirms Four-Year Cycle, Predicts Q4 Recovery

Recently, in a public interview, Scaramucci stated that although continuous inflows into Bitcoin ETFs and institutional participation have somewhat “dampened” price volatility, the basic framework of the four-year cycle still exists. He believes the market is currently in a “normal” bear market correction and pointed out that some early participants, based on their faith in the cycle, created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Based on this logic, he predicts Bitcoin prices will mostly remain volatile until 2026, with a new bull market beginning in Q4.

Historical Context of the Four-Year Cycle and Current Node

The core anchor of the four-year cycle theory is Bitcoin’s “halving” event, which occurs approximately every four years when 210,000 blocks are mined, halving the block reward for miners. This mechanism aims to control Bitcoin’s supply. Historically, halving events have often been seen as catalysts for new bull markets, with the logic: supply reduction → increased scarcity → bullish price expectations.

Looking back at previous cycles, market movements have shown a relatively clear pattern: prices start to heat up about a year before halving, consolidate around the halving year, then experience explosive growth about a year after, followed by a deep correction. However, the current cycle (2024 halving) has broken this traditional rhythm. In 2025, driven by multiple positive factors (such as former U.S. President Trump’s friendly stance toward crypto), Bitcoin briefly surged to a record high of $126,080, far exceeding the market’s expected target of $150,000, which at the time seemed within reach. But the subsequent market crash in October pulled prices back to the $60,000 range, shattering mainstream consensus and raising serious questions about the validity of the four-year cycle.

Comparing Past Halving Cycles with the Current Market

To evaluate Scaramucci’s view, it’s necessary to compare historical halving cycle price performance with current data. The table below summarizes key price movements at important time points after each halving:

Data source: Gate.io market data, as of March 23, 2026.

From historical data, the first three cycles show that the 12- to 18-month period after halving is typically the golden window for accelerated price increases. The current cycle, however, reached its peak around April 2025—about 12 months after halving—and then experienced a sharp decline, deviating significantly from historical patterns. A key variable here is the approval of Bitcoin ETFs. The ETF brought unprecedented, structural capital inflows, rapidly realizing gains that normally take about 18 months in just 12 months, possibly explaining why the peak arrived early.

Mainstream Views and Market Controversies

Regarding whether the four-year cycle remains valid, market opinions generally fall into two camps:

• Cycle believers (e.g., Scaramucci): They argue that although ETF inflows have altered the pace of capital entry, Bitcoin’s fundamentals (scarcity driven by halving) and macro liquidity cycles remain unchanged. The 2025 peak, they say, may be earlier, but the correction cycle might also start sooner. Overall, the market will likely re-enter an upward trend by Q4 2026. This view is based on the idea that “history repeats,” but the rhythm may be compressed.

• Structural change advocates: They believe that the introduction of ETFs, deep institutional involvement, and changes in the macroeconomic environment (such as high inflation and geopolitical conflicts) have fundamentally altered Bitcoin’s market structure. Bitcoin’s price movements are increasingly correlated with tech growth stocks like the Nasdaq. When macro risk appetite declines, institutions may quickly sell off, causing sharp volatility. They suggest that the traditional four-year cycle has been broken, and Bitcoin’s trajectory will depend more on global central bank liquidity policies and stock market performance.

Is the Four-Year Cycle a Law or a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?

Examining the “four-year cycle” requires understanding its essence. Technically, halving is a real, immutable code rule that affects supply. However, when the market equates halving with an “inevitable bull run” and bases investment decisions on this, it creates a powerful collective narrative. Scaramucci’s mention of a “self-fulfilling prophecy” precisely captures this. When enough market participants believe in the cycle, they buy or sell at specific times, reinforcing the link between price and timing. Thus, the four-year cycle has evolved from a purely supply-side economic model into a market consensus intertwined with behavioral finance. The current deviation may reflect how this consensus is being challenged by new structural variables (like ETFs).

Industry Impact: How Institutionalization Reshapes Cycle Logic

The entry of institutional investors is the most significant structural change in this cycle. Its impact on the cycle manifests in two ways:

• Volatility buffering: The “dampening” effect Scaramucci mentioned exists. ETFs provide continuous, stable buying, explaining why Bitcoin has oscillated between $67,353.5 and $69,585.4 since early 2026 without experiencing the extreme crashes typical of previous bear markets. Long-term institutional holdings provide a market floor.

• Increased macro sensitivity: Simultaneously, Bitcoin’s risk asset nature is amplified. When institutions allocate assets, they compare Bitcoin with other risk assets like stocks. Recent geopolitical tensions and risk-off sentiment have increased Bitcoin’s correlation with the S&P 500. This suggests that even if the timing points to Q4, macroeconomic deterioration (like recession fears) might prevent a quick rebound, delaying or weakening the rally.

Multi-Scenario Evolution and Projections

Based on the above analysis, several future market scenarios can be hypothesized:

• Scenario 1: Cycle reinforcement, Q4 rally as expected

  • Conditions: The Fed turns dovish, global liquidity improves, geopolitical tensions ease, and ETF capital flows resume large-scale inflows in Q4.
  • Path: After nearly a year of consolidation and pessimism, market sentiment turns optimistic. Institutional and retail investors enter simultaneously, pushing Bitcoin into a new upward trend in Q4.

• Scenario 2: Macro risks delay or weaken the cycle

  • Conditions: Persistent high inflation prompts continued tightening by central banks. Ongoing conflicts (e.g., Iran) sustain risk aversion.
  • Path: Despite the cycle pointing to Q4, macro headwinds suppress gains. Bitcoin may continue sideways or decline further, pushing the cycle’s timing further out.

• Scenario 3: Structural shift, entering a “new normal”

  • Conditions: Regulatory changes (e.g., new crypto classifications or taxes), ETF expansion, and institutional dominance.
  • Path: The traditional cycle pattern breaks down. Bitcoin’s volatility narrows, and its correlation with stocks remains high. The market shifts toward a regime driven by macroeconomic factors, corporate earnings, and ETF flows, with no clear “halving year” pattern.

Conclusion

Scaramucci’s steadfast belief in the four-year cycle reflects the core conviction of many long-term market participants, grounded in Bitcoin’s unchangeable supply mechanics and historical data. However, the structural changes brought by ETFs and institutional involvement are reshaping the market’s dynamics, causing deviations in rhythm and magnitude.

For investors, the current environment demands caution. While historical cycles offer valuable reference points, macro liquidity, geopolitical risks, and institutional behaviors must also be integrated into analysis. Whether the “four-year cycle” narrative ultimately proves accurate or not, understanding the market’s fundamental supply-demand logic and respecting risk remain essential for navigating the crypto landscape. The market’s future trajectory will depend on the ongoing tug-of-war between supply-side certainty and demand-side macro variables.