There has been a lot of debate lately about whether Bitcoin’s classic 4-year cycle still applies. Some believe the model is broken, others think it’s still playing out. After looking closely at past market behavior, there are some interesting patterns that are hard to ignore.

If we analyze Bitcoin’s major cycles, a recurring structure appears:

A prolonged bearish phase where price declines sharply and finds a macro bottom.

Followed by a long accumulation and expansion phase that eventually leads to a cycle high.

The total duration of each cycle is surprisingly consistent, roughly between 1400 and 1500 days.

In the first major cycle (2013–2017), Bitcoin spent roughly the first year declining, losing more than 80% from its peak before forming a bottom. The remaining time was spent recovering, expanding, and eventually reaching a blow-off top.

The second cycle (2017–2021) showed a very similar time structure. Again, the market spent around one year in a deep drawdown (over 80%), followed by a multi-year expansion phase that led to a new all-time high.

Now, looking at the current cycle starting from late 2021, the same timing logic appears once again:

The market bottom formed after roughly 12 months.

The drawdown was slightly smaller (~75–80%), which aligns with diminishing volatility as the market matures.

From a time perspective, we are approaching the final phase of the cycle window.

This raises an important point:

The time symmetry of Bitcoin cycles has remained surprisingly consistent, even though the magnitude of returns is decreasing.

That doesn’t mean price targets can be predicted mechanically. It does mean that market structure, psychology, and liquidity behavior still respect cyclical timing more than many assume.

Key takeaway:

The 4-year cycle may not be “perfect” anymore, but it does not appear to be invalid. Instead, it seems to be evolving:

Less extreme drawdowns

Lower multipliers

More influence from macro liquidity and institutional flows

Time cycles are still relevant — price projections need to be more conservative.

The real question is no longer “Does the 4-year cycle exist?”

But rather: “How much weaker does each cycle become as Bitcoin matures?”