Recently, everyone has been discussing a question: Is the four-year cycle of Bitcoin still effective?

On the surface, the pattern still seems to hold: the 2024 halving →突破12万美元 in October 2025 → followed by a correction. But here’s the problem: this round of market rally has been particularly subdued, with no signs of the frenzy seen in 2017, nor the widespread participation of 2021. BTC reached a new high but retraced 25% in less than a month, smaller coins didn’t follow the surge, market sentiment didn’t spread widely, and Bitcoin’s dominance is stuck around 59%—this doesn’t look like the end of a bull market; it’s more like the fire was just ignited and then quickly extinguished.

So why are more and more people feeling that the cycle is no longer effective? The simple answer is: this round of market movement has been "dampened."

Since entering the ETF era, institutional funds have become the main players in the market. Unlike retail investors chasing trends and emotions, institutions focus on asset allocation, building positions steadily, and exiting when needed. They are less affected by emotional swings. The result is clear: volatility has been suppressed, market enthusiasm spreads more slowly, altcoins lack systematic support for a rally, and overall gains have noticeably narrowed.

Doing the math makes it clear: from the low point at the end of 2022 to this high, BTC has only increased 7 to 8 times; if calculated from the halving, it’s even less than 2 times. For veteran traders used to "halving equals explosion," these numbers are quite embarrassing, which is why some say the cycle has failed.

But the reality isn’t so bleak. Setting aside emotions, looking at data and fundamentals, the truth is different: the cycle hasn’t disappeared; it has just taken a different form. The supply logic of the halving still applies, with new supply continuously decreasing, long-term capital still flowing in, and the market cap that has already been realized has also been significantly elevated. The cycle has changed shape, but the underlying logic remains the same.