pull down to refresh
That's the distinction I keep coming back to. "This time is different" is dangerous when it's just used to justify a higher price, but sometimes the underlying market structure actually does change.
ETFs and corporate treasuries don't eliminate bear markets, but they could change what creates them and how deep they get. If the old forced-selling mechanism is weaker, maybe the next major Bitcoin bear isn't another 70–80% collapse.
The interesting question then becomes: if the four-year cycle really is weakening, what replaces it? Global liquidity? ETF flows? Credit conditions? Something else entirely?
My answer to "what replaces the four-year cycle" is: nothing that clean. The halving gave everyone a shared, predictable clock. Liquidity cycles aren't nearly as predictable, the Fed doesn't announce a schedule four years out. That might mean less boom-bust regularity, not more.
I agree with you a bit, however, "this time is different" is usually where good theses go to die. But I think the mechanism behind past cycles genuinely doesn't apply the same way anymore.
The old boom-bust cycles were driven by leveraged retail speculation and weak-handed holders cycling in and out on halving narratives. That's just not who owns the marginal supply now. ETFs rebalance on flows, not narratives. Corporates hold as treasury policy, not a trade. When a big enough chunk of supply sits with entities that aren't exiting on the old 4-year clock, the selling pressure that made past bears so brutal just isn't there in the same size.
There is still room for a bear market. I just don't think it looks like the last one, and I don't think the old playbook predicts its depth anymore.