Analyst: Bitcoin Market Cycles Driven by Adoption Trends, Not Halvings
Analyst James Check says Bitcoin’s market cycles are driven more by shifts in adoption and market structure than by the four‑year halving timetable that many traders treat as the primary anchor for bull and bear phases.
According to Check, Bitcoin has gone through three distinct cycles. The first, an "adoption" cycle from roughly 2011 to 2018, was led by early retail buyers. The second, an "adolescence" cycle from about 2018 to 2022, featured boom‑and‑bust dynamics amplified by leverage. The current phase, which Check calls a "maturity" cycle beginning in 2022, is defined by growing institutional participation and greater market stability.
Check argues that the market’s 2017 peak and the 2022 bottom mark transition points between these regimes, and he warns that investors who mechanically expect past patterns to repeat around halving dates may miss important signals coming from structural changes.
That view contrasts with the popular halving‑cycle thesis, which holds that Bitcoin’s bull peaks commonly arrive in the year following a halving because the supply-side shock coincides with rising demand. Supporters of the halving theory point to peaks after the 2012, 2016 and 2020 halvings — with many watching whether 2025 will follow suit.
Other market voices have added nuance to the debate. Some strategists say the traditional four‑year rhythm could be altered or extended by macro factors such as dollar liquidity and large inflows into spot Bitcoin investment vehicles. A few prominent analysts have suggested the four‑year cycle may be changing, while others caution that it is not yet definitively broken.
On Aug. 20, researchers at on‑chain analytics firm Glassnode noted that Bitcoin’s price action still resembles traditional cycle patterns and that recent profit taking and elevated selling pressure point to a late phase within the current cycle. Traders who follow position‑based approaches have similarly observed that markets appear to move in repeating cycles, even if the intensity and timing shift over time.
In short, the conversation among analysts remains divided: some emphasize the mechanical supply effect of halvings, while others, like Check, argue adoption trends and changes in market structure are the more meaningful drivers of long‑run cycles. The practical implication is that investors should watch both macro and structural signals, rather than relying solely on calendar‑based expectations tied to halving events.
