The true coolness of Bitcoin: it's not the 'super cycle', but the uncompromising

[billbBTCXMR]

If Bitcoin really permanently deviates from the four-year supply shock rhythm due to these new factors, with prices becoming 'only up without retracement' or a super smooth macro asset trend, it would instead prove that the original supply discipline has been 'diluted'.

The truly hardcore Bitcoin is one that, regardless of how many institutions there are, regardless of whether the U.S. builds strategic reserves, and regardless of global recognition, still halves every four years on time, and still experiences drastic fluctuations (upward or downward) at some stage due to supply-demand imbalances. This is what it means to 'follow the rules no matter how good or bad the market is'. If a super cycle really happens and is permanent (with no obvious four-year bear market), then there's really nothing particularly exciting about it. Because that means Bitcoin has transformed from a 'strict fixed issuance discipline experiment' into 'another asset driven by macro liquidity', and its uniqueness has been weakened.

Conversely, if even amidst a super narrative and high prices, there still occurs a classic 'retrace when it should retrace' around the halving in 2028, or even another major bear market, that would rather prove: Bitcoin's design can truly withstand the test; it lives not by stories, but by code. $BTC

[hd49728]

If Bitcoin really permanently deviates from the four-year supply shock rhythm due to these new factors, with prices becoming 'only up without retracement' or a super smooth macro asset trend, it would instead prove that the original supply discipline has been 'diluted'.

There is a conspiracy theory that the four-year cycle no longer works accurate this cycle and even is no longer valid this cycle. There are many people who are mentioning about a super cycle for this cycle, and it hypes people in the market a lot. However, before anything changes, history changes, the super cycle is only on the paper and online discussions while we only know it actually changes Bitcoin history if the years of 2026 and 2027 won't be bearish years according to classic four-year cycle.

The truly hardcore Bitcoin is one that, regardless of how many institutions there are, regardless of whether the U.S. builds strategic reserves, and regardless of global recognition, still halves every four years on time, and still experiences drastic fluctuations (upward or downward) at some stage due to supply-demand imbalances. This is what it means to 'follow the rules no matter how good or bad the market is'. If a super cycle really happens and is permanent (with no obvious four-year bear market), then there's really nothing particularly exciting about it. Because that means Bitcoin has transformed from a 'strict fixed issuance discipline experiment' into 'another asset driven by macro liquidity', and its uniqueness has been weakened.

Hardcore Bitcoin investors don't care about super cycle existence in one cycle as they already witnessed Bitcoin super cycle since 2009 and in their imagination, they already vision a very long super cycle for Bitcoin in many Bitcoin halvings ahead. They have deep knowledge, enough experience, and very strong belief in Bitcoin future, so that they only see super cycle for Bitcoin long term growth. They know that what happens in four or five years is only small part of Bitcoin super growth.

[BlackHatCoiner]

A super cycle is not going to happen. Institutions have realized that bitcoin is the apex predator asset and are on a mission to acquire most bitcoin over the long term. There are roughly 8 million bitcoin still held by individuals, and there's no way the elite let a super cycle happen with more than a third of the supply owned by random people. They first acquire the 8 million through a period of 10-20 years, and then the price can go to $10 million.  

It is also likely that the four-year cycle is just gone for a variety of reasons that I explained in here.

[hd49728]

A super cycle is not going to happen. Institutions have realized that bitcoin is the apex predator asset and are on a mission to acquire most bitcoin over the long term. There are roughly 8 million bitcoin still held by individuals, and there's no way the elite let a super cycle happen with more than a third of the supply owned by random people. They first acquire the 8 million through a period of 10-20 years, and then the price can go to $10 million.  

It is also likely that the four-year cycle is just gone for a variety of reasons that I explained in here.

I believe like you did as institutional investors are smart and they don't actually need to change the game. While they know very well about Bitcoin protocol design with 4 year halving (each 210,000 blocks) that is amazingly working for Bitcoin and its market cycle. They can manipulate the market for having kind of profit each annual year even in a bearish year, while in long term they can do their market manipulations based on the Bitcoin 4-year cycle that already exists and does not need to be changed entirely to a super cycle.

By the way, any super cycle has to end somehow as no asset can have a super cycle that start and last forever without any correction and bear market for re-accumulation and reset the game.

[Donneski]

I don’t think Bitcoin is headed for some permanent regime where cycles just disappear. What’s really changing is who’s holding it. Large institutions seem to have realized this isn’t something you time perfectly but something you steadily accumulate. That doesn’t cancel the halving or volatility, it just means drawdowns get met by stronger demand. The protocol keeps its discipline and the market slowly adapts to it not the other way around.

[hd49728]

I don’t think Bitcoin is headed for some permanent regime where cycles just disappear. What’s really changing is who’s holding it. Large institutions seem to have realized this isn’t something you time perfectly but something you steadily accumulate. That doesn’t cancel the halving or volatility, it just means drawdowns get met by stronger demand. The protocol keeps its discipline and the market slowly adapts to it not the other way around.

In past cycles, people made mistakes by raising their price targets higher and higher with time, and they also thought of "this time the market will be different than past cycles", and we all knew about what happened with past market cycles. The four-year cycle worked well in past cycles and I don't bet my money and decions with my bitcoin by believing in "this time is different" and "this time Bitcoin will have a super cycle".

Investors must have knowledge about the market, its history, its cycle and make their investment plans from both entries to withdrawals based on history. What will change belongs to the future, and I don't bet anything that future will have different market cycle than how Bitcoin has had so far since 2009. When there is a super cycle, there will be another big question, how long will a super cycle last?

Nobody can answer that at the present.

[Yamane_Keto]

The effect of changing the supply of Bitcoin due to halving will decrease with each cycle, so you will notice that the super cycle actually occurred between 2010 and 2018, and since that date the cycles have become less and less frequent until they have no effect within 12-15 years.

[Judith87403]

I totally agree with the key idea. The real strength of Bitcoin is not price increasing forever, but the unbending nature of the rules. Halvings do happen on schedule, volatility showing up when there is clash in supply and demand, and painful drawdowns are not bugs but features. When Bitcoin becomes a smooth just up macro asset, then at some point it that which made it different from fiat driven markets. Protocols should be riden by narratives and institutions, and not rewrite it. The future where Bitcoin will still retrace, still punish excess, and still shock the market no matter the international adoption would really confirm its integrity. Bitcoin showing prove that it obeys code rather than comfort is much more bullish than any permanent super cycle.

[d5000]

If Bitcoin really permanently deviates from the four-year supply shock rhythm due to these new factors, with prices becoming 'only up without retracement' or a super smooth macro asset trend, it would instead prove that the original supply discipline has been 'diluted'. [...] Because that means Bitcoin has transformed from a 'strict fixed issuance discipline experiment' into 'another asset driven by macro liquidity', and its uniqueness has been weakened.

No, that's false. Bitcoin's "supply limit" is the main factor that creates "supply discipline", not the ever-weaker variances created by halvings. The weakening of the halving effect is pure math and thus there is nothing to worry nor to cry about some "lost uniqueness". And demand is always part of the scarcity equation.

In my opinion, there was only one "cycle" where the halving-driven supply imbalance was a major factor: 2012/13. That was the time where the halving drastically accelerated the transition from CPU/GPU mining to ASIC mining. It was still retailer-driven, but not everybody with a decent machine could create Bitcoins anymore on his PC. This created strong buy pressure, as most retailers now had to buy on exchanges.

The 2016 halving was probably still a minor catalyst of the 2017 bull run, but by far the most relevant factor in my opinion was the general popularization and adoption, also driven by altcoins like Ethereum (sorry, maxis ).

Bitcoin adoption is also a factor not tied directly to "macro liquidity". It can also be driven by factors like usefulness/utility and by local and regional preferences.

See also this thread.