Discussion around the Bitcoin market cycle remains one of the most central narratives in the crypto industry. Recently, SkyBridge Capital founder Anthony Scaramucci reiterated that the four-year cycle theory for Bitcoin is still intact, predicting a new bull run in the fourth quarter of 2026. His remarks quickly drew market attention, especially as debate over the validity of the "four-year cycle" has intensified following Bitcoin’s sharp correction after reaching an all-time high in 2025. This article uses Scaramucci’s perspective as a starting point and combines historical data, current market structure, and macro variables to provide a multidimensional analysis and projection of the theory.
Scaramucci Reaffirms the Four-Year Cycle, Predicts Q4 Recovery
In recent public interviews, Scaramucci stated that although ongoing inflows into Bitcoin ETFs and increased institutional participation have somewhat "dampened" price volatility, the fundamental framework of the four-year cycle remains in place. He believes the market is currently in a "normal" bear market correction phase and points out that some early participants, driven by their belief in the cycle, have created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Based on this logic, he predicts the Bitcoin price will likely trade sideways for most of 2026, with a new bull run not beginning until the fourth quarter.
The Historical Context and Current Status of the Four-Year Cycle Theory
At its core, the four-year cycle theory is anchored in Bitcoin’s halving events—every 210,000 blocks mined, the block reward for miners is cut in half. This mechanism, which occurs roughly every four years, is designed to control Bitcoin’s supply. Historically, halvings are seen as catalysts for new bull markets, with the logic unfolding as follows: reduced supply → increased scarcity → higher price expectations.
Looking back at previous cycles, the market has shown a fairly clear pattern: prices start to heat up the year before the halving, consolidate during the halving year, surge explosively the year after, and then enter a deep correction. However, the current cycle (with the 2024 halving) has broken this traditional rhythm. In 2025, fueled by multiple tailwinds (such as former US President Trump’s pro-crypto stance), Bitcoin soared to an all-time high of $126,080—making the widely expected $150,000 target seem within reach. Yet, the market crashed in October, pulling prices back to the $60,000 range and shattering mainstream consensus. For the first time, the effectiveness of the four-year cycle faced widespread skepticism.
Comparing Historical Halving Cycles and the Current Market
To evaluate Scaramucci’s view, it’s important to compare price performance in previous halving cycles with current data. The table below summarizes key price movements following each halving:
| Halving Cycle | Halving Date | Price Performance 12 Months After | Price Performance 18 Months After (Approx. Q4) | Cycle Highs and Lows |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 Halving | 2012/11 | ~+300% | Continued rally | Peaked ~12 months post-halving |
| 2016 Halving | 2016/07 | ~+30% | Entered main uptrend | Peaked ~18 months post-halving |
| 2020 Halving | 2020/05 | ~+150% | Surpassed previous highs | Peaked ~18 months post-halving |
| 2024 Halving | 2024/04 | All-time high ($126,080) | Deep correction (current $68,185.2) | Anomaly: New high 12 months post-halving, then sharp drop |
Data source: Gate market data, as of March 23, 2026.
Historical data shows that in the first three cycles, the 12 to 18 months after halving were typically a golden window for accelerated price appreciation. In the current cycle, Bitcoin hit its all-time high just 12 months after the halving (around April 2025), then experienced a sharp decline—clearly deviating from historical patterns. The key variable behind this deviation is the approval of Bitcoin ETFs. ETFs brought unprecedented, structural capital inflows, compressing the gains that used to take 18 months into just 12. This likely explains the earlier-than-expected price peak.
Mainstream Views and Market Controversy
Debate over whether the four-year cycle remains valid has split the market into two camps:
- Cycle Adherents (represented by Scaramucci): This group believes that, while ETFs have changed the pace of capital inflows, Bitcoin’s fundamentals (halving-driven scarcity) and macro liquidity cycles remain intact. The early price peak in 2025 means the correction phase may have started sooner, but the overall bear market duration aligns with historical cycles. Thus, they expect the market to resume its uptrend in Q4 2026. Their logic is that "history repeats itself," though the tempo may be compressed.
- Structural Change Advocates: This camp argues that the introduction of ETFs, deep involvement of traditional financial institutions, and shifts in the global macro environment (e.g., high inflation, geopolitical tensions) have fundamentally changed Bitcoin’s market structure. Bitcoin now behaves more like a "tech growth stock" highly correlated with the Nasdaq. When macro risk appetite drops, institutions sell aggressively, causing sharp price swings. They suggest the traditional four-year cycle is broken, and Bitcoin’s price will increasingly depend on global central bank liquidity and US equities.
Is the Four-Year Cycle a Law or a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?
To analyze the "four-year cycle," it’s crucial to distinguish its essence. On a technical level, halving is a real, immutable code rule that directly impacts supply.
However, when the market equates halving with an inevitable bull market and uses it as an investment guide, it becomes a powerful collective narrative. Scaramucci’s reference to a "self-fulfilling prophecy" captures this dynamic precisely. When enough market participants believe in the cycle, they buy or sell at expected time points, reinforcing the link between price and timing. Thus, the four-year cycle theory has evolved from a pure supply-side economic model into a market consensus shaped by behavioral finance. The current cycle’s deviation may reflect how this consensus adapts when new structural variables—like ETFs—emerge.
Industry Impact: How Institutionalization Is Reshaping the Cycle
Institutional investors entering the market is the most significant structural change this cycle. Their impact on the cycle is evident in two ways:
- Volatility Buffer: The "dampening" effect Scaramucci mentioned is real. Compared to previous cycles, ETFs have provided steady, ongoing buy-side support. This explains why, from early 2026 to now, Bitcoin has traded in a range between $67,353.5 and $69,585.4, without the kind of extreme capitulation seen in past bear markets. Institutional long-term allocation helps establish a price floor.
- Heightened Macro Sensitivity: At the same time, Bitcoin’s risk asset profile has intensified. Institutions compare Bitcoin with other risk assets (like US equities) when allocating capital. Recently, flight-to-safety sentiment driven by geopolitical conflict has increased Bitcoin’s correlation with the S&P 500. This means that even if the four-year cycle window arrives, a deteriorating global macro environment (such as a recession) could keep institutions on the sidelines—unlike retail-driven markets of the past—potentially suppressing or delaying any rebound.
Scenario Analysis: Possible Market Evolutions
Based on the above analysis, several potential scenarios for the market’s future can be envisioned. The following are projections:
- Scenario 1: Cycle Logic Holds, Q4 Rally Arrives on Schedule
- Trigger: The Federal Reserve pivots to dovish policy, global liquidity outlook improves, and geopolitical tensions ease, restoring risk appetite. ETF inflows resume at scale in Q4.
- Pathway: After nearly a year of base-building and extreme market pessimism, conditions are set for a new rally. Both institutions and retail investors re-enter, driving a new uptrend for Bitcoin in Q4.
- Scenario 2: Macro Risks Dominate, Cycle Is Delayed or Weakened
- Trigger: Persistently high inflation forces global central banks to maintain tight policy. Escalating conflicts (e.g., war with Iran) continue to pressure risk assets.
- Pathway: Even as the cycle points to Q4, macro "headwinds" are too strong, stifling upside momentum. Bitcoin may remain in a wide trading range or even test lower levels for stronger support. The four-year cycle window is postponed until macro conditions improve.
- Scenario 3: Structural Shift, A "New Normal" Emerges
- Trigger: Regulatory policy surprises (such as new crypto classifications or tax rules). ETF assets under management keep growing, creating an "institutional market."
- Pathway: The four-year cycle pattern breaks down entirely. Bitcoin’s price range narrows, volatility drops, and its movements become highly synchronized with US tech stocks. The clear distinction between "halving years" and "bull years" disappears, replaced by a market driven by macroeconomics, corporate earnings, and ETF flows.
Conclusion
Scaramucci’s commitment to the four-year cycle represents a core belief held by many long-term market participants. This conviction is grounded in Bitcoin’s immutable supply mechanism and historical data, giving it a strong logical foundation. However, the structural changes brought about by Bitcoin ETFs are indeed reshaping the market’s operating logic, introducing deviations in the rhythm and strength of traditional cycles.
For investors, today’s market environment demands greater caution. While historical cycles offer valuable reference points, it’s essential to incorporate new variables—macro liquidity, geopolitical risks, and institutional behavior—into any analysis. Whether or not the "four-year cycle" narrative plays out perfectly, a deep understanding of market fundamentals and a healthy respect for risk remain the keys to navigating cycles. Ultimately, the market’s direction will be determined by the ongoing interplay between supply-side certainty and demand-side macro variables.
