저자: TomLee · 외국인
요약 보기
비트코인 4년 주기는 반감기만으로 설명되기 어렵고, 통화정책·마진부채·금·구리 비율은 일부만 설명한다. 구리/금 비율과 ISM 제조업 지수(현재 48.7)는 아직 고점 신호가 아니므로 산업활동 기준 고점은 멀었다. 반면 주간 종가가 50주 이동평균 아래로 내려온 것은 역사적으로 주기 종료 신호였고, 고점이 이미 지났을 확률을 60~70%로 본다. 단기 반등 후 200일 이동평균 회복 가능성을 언급하며, 결론적으로 'hold' 입장을 유지한다.
다듬은 글
I believe the halving cycle worked in the past, but now too many things are tied to a four-year period. The monetary policy cycle doesn't really explain the four-year cycle. He explains Bitcoin in the short term, but not within a four-year timeframe. The speculation cycle doesn't quite work, as it only explained one of Bitcoin's three margin cycles .
But comparing gold, bitcoin, and copper, yes, it does look indicative and tells us that we are not close to the peak because industrial activity has not peaked. And finally, regarding the business cycle, I think it is quite indicative and, again, not a sign of a peak. So, our conclusion is that Bitcoin's price cycle actually follows industrial activity and gold.
And the current message is—hold (hodl). I wouldn't give up on Bitcoin and assume that the price has already peaked. Since 2010, Bitcoin has been moving in cycles that repeat approximately every 3.9 years. Each cycle includes a powerful multi-year uptrend followed by a sharp one-year bear market, almost like clockwork.
Historically, many analysts, including Tom Lee, have attributed this rhythm to the Bitcoin halving event, which reduces the block reward by 50% every 4 years. And for a long time, this explanation was logical. Reduced supply means increased shortages, which means higher prices. But today everything is different.
Bitcoin is no longer just a retail tool. Institutional investors, corporate treasuries and even governments are now active players. Because of this, Tom Lee argues that the halving alone cannot fully explain Bitcoin's four-year recurring structure. Please take a moment notifications to receive about cryptocurrencies and the general digital asset space, and leave makes a huge contribution to the growth of your channel.
Thank you, and enjoy watching. What is a four-year Bitcoin price cycle, you ask? Well, it's hard to explain, but if you look at the price of Bitcoin since 2010, which we've marked with the green lines, there have been 3.9 annual cycles. And at the end of these cycles, a one-year "bear " market occurs.
So, why is this happening? In the past, I would say it was because of the halving cycle, which occurs approximately every four years. But there are other possible explanations. This could be monetary policy related to the M2 money supply and the actions of the Fed. This could be a cycle of speculation related to margin debt.
Remember that until the last few years, Bitcoin was only for retail investors, but today things are different because of institutional investors. But it could be related to the industry. Perhaps it's the relationship between gold, bitcoin, and copper. In other words , the industrial activity coefficient.
And finally , it can also be related to the business cycle. So, let's look at these five possible explanations. Halving is when the Bitcoin block reward is halved. This really reduces supply. I would have said earlier that this could explain Bitcoin's price dynamics. And as you can see, halvings are happening here.
Again, I would support this view if it weren't for the last few years, when a new source of flow has emerged that didn't exist for most of Bitcoin's history, namely institutional adoption and possible government adoption of Bitcoin. Another reason I don't necessarily believe this is because there are many other things that have a four-year cycle: presidential cycles, leap years, the Olympics, FIFA, you know, the World Cup, rugby, etc.
So, let's move on to monetary policy liquidity. This could explain the situation: whether it's the Fed cutting rates or quantitative easing, I think in the short term these are certainly important factors, but do they explain the four-year cycle? We could look at the M2 money supply and see if it explains the four-year cycles.
In other words , is there a four-year monetary cycle? In fact, if you look at the peak prices of Bitcoin, they were not dependent on Fed liquidity. So I don't think that's the explanation. Well, let's talk about margin debt for retail investors. That could explain something, because we know that retail investors bought Bitcoin in the early stages, and they continue to do so, but they are not the only source of flows today, because as we see, a lot of it is institutional money, but you can go to FINRA, get the margin debt data, and this is what the graph looks like.
So, I think it looks a bit cyclical. In fact, if you overlay it on the price of Bitcoin, they look somewhat related, but here's the thing: the peaks don't coincide. Bitcoin enters a bear market even as margin debt continues to rise. So I don't think margin debt really explains Bitcoin's peaks. This brings us to the comparison of copper and gold.
Someone on Twitter posted this under the nickname AOBTC Analyst and I thought it was interesting. This is a statement about whether there is a copper to gold ratio that determines the bonds of Bitcoin. That's why it's interesting. The copper- to-gold ratio is an indicator of industrial activity relative to a fixed monetary base.
So, when industrial activity peaks, we see a high copper to gold ratio. Could this signal a peak in the Bitcoin price? Well , let's overlay this graph. And if we look at the peaks of this ratio, they actually coincide very well with the peak of Bitcoin prices. So I think it's very telling, but look at the current ratio.
It does not signal a peak. Let's also look at the ISM manufacturing index in the same context. ISM is actually the most important indicator of industrial activity in the US. When this index is above 50, the economy is growing, and when it is below 50, it is in a state of contraction. Here are the peaks of the business cycle.
The current value is 48.7. So, ISM indicates that we are not in a zone of confident growth and, of course, far from peaking. How does this relate to the price of Bitcoin? If you look at the peaks in the ISM numbers, they really correlate well with the peaks in the Bitcoin price. In fact, four times Bitcoin’s major highs coincided with ISM highs.
But right now, the ISM is not signaling a peak. It's still well below 50. So, here's our view. I think the halving cycle has worked in the past, but there are too many things that last 4 years. The monetary policy cycle doesn't really explain the four-year cycle. He explains Bitcoin in the short term , but not in a four-year perspective .
The speculation cycle doesn't quite work because it only explained one of the three margin cycles for Bitcoin. But this comparison of gold, bitcoin, and copper does seem explanatory and indicates that we are not nearing the top because industrial activity is not at its peak . And finally, regarding the business cycle, I think it is quite indicative and again, not a sign of a peak.
So , our conclusion: Bitcoin's price cycle appears to actually follow industrial activity and gold. And the current message is to hold your ground. I would n't give up on Bitcoin and assume that the price has already peaked. Another analytical perspective argues the opposite: Bitcoin’s current weekly close below the 50- week moving average is a strong signal that the top has already been reached.
Historically, weekly closes below the 50-week moving average in the years following the halving signal the start of a significant downtrend. According to this view , there is a 60-70% probability that the peak is already behind us. " Death crosses" often signal weakness in a cycle, but sometimes mark a bottom.
Bear markets are normal for mid-cycle, like in 2014, 2018, and 2022. Bitcoin often returns to the 200- day moving average even during bearish phases. A temporary rebound is likely, even if a deeper drop is expected later . This outlook highlights uncertainty, as while industry data points to further growth for Bitcoin, technical data advises caution.
Historically, this is not very good. Again, I do n't control the market. You don't control the market, as I said before, right? Trade the market as it is, not the one you want it to be. Of course, there are some nuances here, and we'll look at them in more detail tomorrow, because it's not exactly the same.
But if you look at all the previous fourth quarters of all the previous years after the halving, when you get weekly closes below the 50- week moving average, historically that has signaled the end of the cycle. Isn't that right? That's what it meant historically. And again , this is one of those things that's hard to argue with.
It's simply a fact: when Bitcoin closes weekly candles below the 50-week moving average in the year after the halving, it sets the stage for a drop to the 200- week average. Last cycle, we even dropped below the 200-week moving average. Will we sink below it this cycle? That's the thing. The " bears" have strong arguments.
It really is, is n't it? We've been saying for a long time that when you're looking at ROI from a minimum, you have to consider this as a possible outcome. Because, you know, if you look at it, Bitcoin peaked at about the same time it always does, if you measure profitability from the bottom. Or if you measure from the halving.
Is that true? If you measure from the halving, you can say, "Hey, what else can we expect if it peaks when and where it always does?" Of course? So, it's true. But it's also true that the "bulls" say, "Listen, wait a minute." We didn't have a euphoric phase, right? None of the indicators you would expect to signal a peak actually worked.
It was more of a slower upward movement. And that's why I'm comparing this more to what happened in 2019, right? When the peak comes not because of euphoria, but because of apathy. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, look at social risks and interest in cryptocurrencies: we peaked more out of apathy like in 2019 than out of euphoria like in 2017 or 2021 .
So, I think, first of all, we need some margin for maneuver, right? I said that it's worth waiting for two weeks of closings for confirmation. There was a point in 2019 when we closed lower for a week, but came back higher the very next week. Then we fluctuated around the 50- week moving average for a while, and then went up again.
And then the market crashed, right? At this point, I would say, given that we closed below the 50-week moving average and that the cycle is coming to an end, the probability that the peak is behind us is about 60-70 %. Okay, somewhere around 60-70%. Listen, after all, we just had a " death cross." There have been many cases where the "death cross" has indicated local lows for several days.
So I'm not urging you to make hasty decisions, but it's worth keeping in mind. We are all adults here. This is just worth remembering. And don't forget that bear markets are a normal part of the cycle, right? They happen , they happened in every year of the middle of the cycle. 2014, 2018, 2022. Maybe this is just preparing us for 2026?
You know , there could be a scenario like in the last cycle: a drop at the end of the year after the halving, and a slight increase at the beginning of the year in the middle of the cycle . Well, back to the 50- week moving average. I think it's quite possible. This scenario is absolutely real. I want to draw your attention to the "death cross" and remind you that sometimes Bitcoin finds a minimum during this period, right?
This already happened earlier this year, and has happened many, many times in general. So I don't want to ignore this fact. The bulls are right: Bitcoin often bottoms around the time of the "death cross." But at the end of the cycle, it won't necessarily work. That's where the difficulty lies. There are moments at the end of the cycle when people expect a rally after the "cross of death", but it doesn't happen.
You get a small rally, then the price drops even lower, people panic, and then there's a rally to the 200-day moving average. So I want to draw your attention to this. If the peak has already been passed, then we should expect the price to return to the 200- day moving average at some point, right? This happened in every cycle.
In 2019, it even rose above this level. But usually we still see a rebound to the 200-day moving average. Note that we are now quite far below the 200- day moving average, but I assume that if the peak is passed, Bitcoin should return to it. Truth? That doesn't mean he can't fall first. I mean, it's possible.
However, the 200- day moving average, in my opinion , still plays a role, regardless of whether the peak of the cycle has been passed . This concludes our expert review of Tom Lee's in-depth analysis of Bitcoin's 4-year cycle— one of the most mysterious and incomprehensible rhythms in global markets.
By looking at the halving narrative, monetary liquidity, retail investor speculation, industry indicators, and key technical levels, we gain a clearer picture of where Bitcoin is headed and what really influences its long-term cycles. Whether you are a long-term investor or a short-term trader, understanding these forces gives you an advantage in managing what many consider to be the most important digital asset of our time.
Comments 0