The cycle after the fourth halving: what actually changed

The fourth halving (April 2024) was supposed to be boring. After three previous cycles with a repeatable structure — accumulation, breakout, blow-off, capitulation — the market had built-in expectations for a replay. Instead, the 2024–2026 cycle looks different. Less spectacular at the peaks, but structurally deeper. Let's try to understand why.

What repeated

The halving reduced new issuance from 6.25 to 3.125 BTC per block. Annual supply inflation dropped below 1% — lower than gold. The price 12 months after halving was higher than before. All historical patterns that worked in 2012, 2016 and 2020 also worked in 2024.

This, however, is not the same cycle.

What changed structurally

1. Institutional accumulation has no seasonality

In previous cycles, retail demand dominated and had clear cyclicality: inflows in bull markets, outflows in bear markets. After 2024, demand from ETFs and treasury companies does not react to price in the same pattern. These entities have allocation mandates, not emotions. They buy in bear markets, they buy in bull markets. Structurally, they absorb a much higher percentage of new issuance than retail ever did.

2. Supply in "long-term hands" has broken historical highs

The percentage of BTC immobile for 5+ years has crossed 30% of existing supply. This has never happened before at this stage of the cycle. It means available liquid supply (BTC that actually changes hands in response to price) is smaller than in previous cycles — even though total supply is larger.

3. Correlation with the S&P 500 has fallen

For most of 2020–2023, Bitcoin behaved as a risk asset — correlation with equity indices was high, the "digital tech stock" narrative dominated. In 2025–2026 the correlation fell to around 0.15–0.30, at times negative. Bitcoin is starting to be priced independently of the equity cycle — consistent with the thesis of transformation into a treasury asset.

What this means for a company board

For capital allocation decisions at the corporate level, these changes matter more than spot price.

• Volatility is compressing. Daily/weekly still high, but annual realized volatility fell in 2025 to the lowest levels in Bitcoin's history. This makes balance-sheet entries easier to justify in investment committees.
• Drawdowns are getting shallower. The classic -80% bear-market corrections would now require outflows from participants who structurally do not sell. That is mathematically increasingly difficult.
• NAV premium for treasury companies is becoming a real debate. The first serious analyses are appearing on how much a company holding X BTC is "really worth" — and how to model accretion per share over time.

What can go wrong

Without false confidence: risk scenarios exist.

1. Coordinated G7 regulation restricting institutional access — unlikely after MiCA, but possible.
2. Critical infrastructure failure in custody at one of the major providers — a trust shock, not a protocol issue.
3. Macroeconomic reset requiring mass distribution — capital flows out of everything, including BTC.

None of these scenarios undermines the long-term thesis. All of them affect the path.

"Bitcoin cycles are not eternal. But the 21-million supply is."

Operational conclusions

For a company building a Bitcoin treasury over a decade horizon, the 2024–2026 cycle is confirmation of the thesis. Less drama, more structure. Less narrative, more on-chain volume charts. This is exactly the kind of market in which DCA discipline and hard issuance rules beat market timing and emotion.

In subsequent posts: a detailed breakdown of the first months of the fifth cycle (post 2028) — what will change when new issuance drops to 1.5625 BTC per block.