Amid growing skepticism over Bitcoin’s four-year cycle, onchain analyst Willy Woo has stepped up to defend the traditional model, arguing that the data does not yet support the 'death of the cycle' narrative. In a series of posts, Woo compared the cycle to a heartbeat, explaining that minor variations in timing or intensity—such as a slower pulse during sleep—do not mean the heartbeat has stopped. He insists that the underlying rhythm, driven by supply-demand mechanics, remains intact at least through 2026.
The Case for the Cycle’s Obsolescence
On the other side of the debate, heavyweights like Bitwise Chief Investment Officer Matt Hougan and researcher Ryan Rasmussen argue that Bitcoin has entered a new macro reality. They point to the massive influx of institutional capital via spot ETFs as a force that has diluted the impact of halvings and leveraged blow-ups, creating a prolonged bull market without the brutal 80% crashes of the past. Other experts interviewed by Bitcoin.com News share this view, stating that institutional flows and ETF demand now shape Bitcoin’s trajectory more than miner reward halvings. This shift, they claim, has produced slower, steadier movements, rendering the old four-year cycle obsolete as a predictive tool. Instead, Bitcoin’s future will likely mirror broader financial markets—less explosive rallies but greater long-term stability.
Woo’s Rebuttal: Supply Shocks and Liquidity Cycles Persist
In response to critics, Woo clarified his own track record. Denying rumors that his hedge fund collapsed in 2020, he explained that the fund in question was actually Murad’s. His own fund, Crest (founded in 2022), is now four years old and still operational, delivering consistent returns. Woo currently runs three institutional funds, including SyzCrest in partnership with Syz Banking Group. To support his cyclical view, Woo highlighted two core drivers: the internal halving supply shock and the four-year global liquidity cycle that determines risk-on/risk-off behavior. He noted that Bitcoin has historically led the macro market into risk-off environments three times, and the question is whether a fourth is now unfolding—covering 100% of Bitcoin’s existence. Supporters add that the current federal injection of billions into the market will eventually hit the risk curve, fueling the cyclical expansion Woo expects to continue.
Implications for Investors
The debate carries significant weight for market participants. If the four-year cycle remains valid, current price action may still be in a transitional phase or a new cycle beginning. If the cycle is truly dead, Bitcoin would evolve into an asset class with lower volatility and more consistent growth, mirroring traditional macro assets. Woo’s stance provides a counterweight to the institutional narrative, urging investors not to dismiss historical patterns prematurely. As Woo put it, 'The data does not support the death of the cycle—at least not yet.' Time will tell which side prevails, but for now, the heartbeat of Bitcoin’s four-year rhythm continues to pulse.