The year after halving Closed in the red for the first time: Is the Bitcoin Cycle under threat

The year after halving Closed in the red for the first time: Is the Bitcoin Cycle under threat
Most Popular
09.01
How states became the largest holders of Bitcoin in 2025
08.01
WB Travel launches branded hotels in foreign resorts
07.01
Wildberries launches catering service together with partners
06.01
Egypt's digital exports have more than doubled in seven years, reaching $7.4 billion.
06.01
BRICS launches grain exchange and digital platform for investors on Russia's initiative
06.01
The holiday week increased the pressure on Bitcoin and Ether ETFs, while XRP and Solana held their gains
The year 2025 was the first post-halving period in the history of bitcoin, which ended with a decline in price. This has led to discussions about whether the four-year cycle has lost its relevance due to the institutionalization of the market and the pressure of macroeconomic factors.

The end of 2025 was an atypical event for the Bitcoin market and called into question the sustainability of its traditional four-year market cycle. For the first time in history, the year following the halving ended with a decline in price: bitcoin closed December about 6% below the level of early January. Previously, in all previous cycles, the post-halving years were accompanied by marked growth.

Bitcoin's four—year cycle has historically been associated with the halving mechanism, a periodic reduction in mining rewards that occurs approximately once every four years. In 2013, 2017 and 2021, such events were accompanied by powerful rallies, forming a steady expectation of growth in the year after the halving. However, this pattern did not work in 2025, despite strong intraday highs in the first half of the year.

Against the background of the final decline, discussions have intensified in the crypto community about whether the four-year cycle has lost its significance. The annual yield charts clearly show that 2025 was an exception compared to all previous post-halving periods.

"For the first time in 14 years, bitcoin closed the annual candle after halving into the red. Can we finally accept that the four—year cycle is dead?" wrote crypto influencer Lark Davis on the social network X.

Skeptics point to several factors that weaken the influence of halving. One of the key arguments is the gradual decrease in their effect as the total supply of bitcoin approaches the limit of 21 million coins. Reducing the reward from 6.25 BTC per block in 2020 to 3.125 BTC in 2024 has created significantly less additional supply pressure than in previous cycles.

Market behavior has also changed due to institutionalization. The launch of spot bitcoin ETFs in the United States in 2024, as well as the participation of corporate treasuries, including Strategy, expanded the investor base, but at the same time strengthened bitcoin's correlation with traditional financial markets.

The macroeconomic environment also played a deterrent role. High interest rates, ongoing inflation risks, and slowing global economic growth have put pressure on risky assets throughout 2025. Even the positive political rhetoric regarding digital assets during the presidency of Donald Trump could not compensate for the general withdrawal of investors from risk by the end of the year.

A number of analysts, however, believe that this is not about the "death" of the cycle, but about its transformation. With a market capitalization exceeding $1.7 trillion, bitcoin's price movements can unfold over longer time horizons. This leads to hypotheses about extended or overlapping cycles instead of a rigid four-year rhythm.

Other market participants recall that bitcoin has been repeatedly declared "dead" after unexpected declines, followed by new growth phases. Historically, responses to supply cuts have sometimes been delayed, especially during periods of dominance by macroeconomic factors.

Thus, 2025 really stands out against the background of past cycles, but the question remains whether this is a structural shift or a temporary anomaly. One thing is clear: bitcoin's behavior is increasingly determined by a combination of institutional and macroeconomic factors, rather than solely by the halving schedule.