Institutional Buyers May Break Bitcoin’s Traditional Four-Year Cycle, Tom Lee Warns

Fundstrat’s Chief Investment Officer Tom Lee has cautioned that institutional buyers could disrupt Bitcoin’s traditional four-year cycle , as sustained institutional capital inflows over the past two years have introduced counter-cyclical dynamics to the ￰0￱ a recent interview with Mario Nawfal, Lee, who serves as Chairman of Bitmine, explained that Bitcoin’s four-year cryptocurrency cycle originates from its halving ￰1￱ Lee: Will the Crypto Four-Year Price Cycle Cease to Be Effective? In an interview with Mario Nawfal, Tom Lee, Chairman of Bitmine, pointed out that the origin of the four-year cryptocurrency cycle can be traced back to Bitcoin's halving ￰2￱ the early decentralized… ￰3￱ — Wu Blockchain (@WuBlockchain) September 8, 2025 Lee emphasized that the market has moved beyond retail dominance, noting that 2024 has witnessed corporate buyers and ETF launches bringing consistent capital flows to Bitcoin, shifting away from the four-year cycle’s supply scarcity-driven rallies that previously powered the entire crypto ￰4￱ Lee: “Equity Market Liquidity Has Ended Bitcoin’s Traditional Four-Year Cycle” According to Lee, the crypto market confronts two critical tests, which are whether Bitcoin will maintain its traditional downward cycle trajectory next year, or whether it will decouple from equity markets with which it has maintained a strong ￰5￱ both scenarios materialize, cycle-based discussions in the cryptocurrency market may gradually ￰6￱ more than a decade, Bitcoin’s market patterns appeared highly ￰7￱ four years, the halving event, a programmed reduction in mining rewards, would initiate a cascading ￰8￱ would surge to fresh peaks, then crash into devastating “crypto winters,” before restarting the cycle.) September 7, 2025 During Bitcoin’s early years, cutting miner rewards created dramatic market flow disruptions.

Currently, the primary market catalysts may be institutional inflows, regulated investment vehicles, and global macroeconomic ￰9￱ Dussault, CEO of Intellistake. ai, similarly views the rise of institutional buyers as representing a structural transformation. “ The halving maintains relevance, but it’s no longer the primary driver ,” he explained to ￰10￱ movements are now equally influenced by global liquidity conditions , ETF capital flows, and investor sentiment as they are by on-chain supply mechanisms. “ Bitcoin increasingly responds to the same factors affecting equities, bonds, and commodities, ” he ￰11￱ July, Bitwise Chief Investment Officer Matt Hougan suggested the historically observed four-year crypto cycle may no longer govern current market ￰12￱ a collaborative discussion with Bitcoin proponent Kyle Chassé and Bloomberg ETF analyst James Seyffart, Hougan contended that the historical framework is deteriorating, potentially giving way to an extended, more sustainable growth ￰13￱ highlighted the July passage of the GENIUS Act as a pivotal developmen t, arguing that the legislation enabled Wall Street to construct crypto-focused financial ￰14￱ Data Contends that Bitcoin’s Traditional Four-Year Cycle is Still Intact Nevertheless, not all analysts are prepared to pronounce the cycle’s ￰15￱ conversation with CryptoNews, Connor Howe, CEO of Enso, argued that the halving’s impact has been weakened rather than eliminated. “ The halving remains significant for mining economics and long-term scarcity narratives, but traders can no longer depend on a strict four-year framework. “ Furthermore, recent Glassnode research suggests Bitcoin’s traditional four-year cycle maintains structural integrity.