{"id":30623,"date":"2026-07-05T15:03:34","date_gmt":"2026-07-05T14:03:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/investx.fr\/en\/2026\/07\/05\/michael-saylor-bitcoin-4-year-cycle-dead\/"},"modified":"2026-07-05T15:03:39","modified_gmt":"2026-07-05T14:03:39","slug":"michael-saylor-bitcoin-4-year-cycle-dead","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/investx.fr\/en\/crypto-news\/michael-saylor-bitcoin-4-year-cycle-dead\/","title":{"rendered":"Michael Saylor: The Bitcoin 4-Year Cycle Is Officially Dead"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Michael Saylor<\/strong> has just dropped a claim that challenges one of the most deeply held beliefs in crypto culture. According to the founder of MicroStrategy<\/strong>, the famous four-year cycle<\/strong> tied to the Bitcoin halving<\/a><\/strong> no longer structures markets the way it once did.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This isn’t coming from just anyone: Saylor<\/strong> runs the company that holds the largest corporate BTC<\/strong> treasury in the world outside of ETFs. His analysis therefore deserves serious examination \u2014 well beyond the headline-grabbing effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But is he right? And if so, what are the concrete implications for investors who have built their entire strategy around this cycle?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why Saylor Is Burying the 4-Year Cycle<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The four-year cycle<\/strong> is built on a straightforward mechanism: the halving<\/strong> cuts miner rewards in half every 210,000 blocks, contracting supply and historically triggering a bull run<\/a><\/strong> followed by a brutal bear market<\/a><\/strong>. This pattern repeated itself in 2013, 2017, and 2021 with striking regularity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Saylor<\/strong> argues that this model was valid during an era when Bitcoin<\/strong> was primarily held by speculative retail traders<\/strong> who were highly sensitive to cycles of euphoria and capitulation. Today, the market structure has changed radically.<\/strong> The arrival of US spot Bitcoin ETFs in January 2024<\/strong>, the massive accumulation by corporate treasuries, and the growing interest from sovereign wealth funds<\/strong> are creating structural institutional demand that absorbs post-halving supply shocks without triggering the crashes of previous cycles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other words, the panic sellers who fueled deep bear markets<\/strong> \u2014 retail investors capitulating at -80% \u2014 are gradually being replaced by long-term players whose investment thesis does not depend on the next halving. BTC is migrating from a speculative cyclical asset toward a digital reserve capital.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bitcoin as Global Capital: A Thesis Reshaping Strategies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Saylor’s<\/a><\/strong> vision goes far beyond a simple market observation. He positions Bitcoin<\/strong> as the digital equivalent of Manhattan real estate or institutional gold: an asset whose value appreciates structurally over the long term, independent of short-term economic cycles. Under this framework, buying BTC is no longer a cyclical trade \u2014 it is a permanent capital allocation.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This thesis finds support in on-chain<\/strong> data. According to CryptoQuant<\/strong>, the volume of BTC<\/strong> held in addresses that have been inactive for more than a year has reached record levels \u2014 a clear sign that long-term holders<\/strong> are not selling despite rising prices. US spot Bitcoin ETFs<\/strong> have absorbed several times the monthly production of new BTC<\/strong> since their launch, creating sustained buying pressure that simply did not exist during previous cycles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One important nuance remains: Bitcoin’s<\/strong> volatility has not disappeared. Corrections of 20 to 30% are still frequent, and support and resistance<\/strong> levels continue to play a key role in short-term price action<\/strong>. What Saylor<\/strong> is suggesting is the end of prolonged 18 to 24-month bear markets<\/strong> with -80% drawdowns \u2014 not the end of intraday volatility or tactical corrections. That distinction is fundamental for anyone building a market entry strategy.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What This Concretely Changes for Reading the Bitcoin Market<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

If Saylor’s<\/strong> thesis proves correct, prediction models based on Stock-to-Flow<\/strong> or halving cycles<\/strong> lose a significant part of their predictive relevance. Tools such as the MVRV Z-Score<\/strong> or the Puell Multiple<\/strong>, which measure BTC’s<\/strong> relative valuation against its cost of production, remain useful for identifying overbought and oversold zones \u2014 but their interpretation must adapt to a market increasingly dominated by institutional flows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Data from CoinGlass<\/strong> shows, for example, that the mass liquidations that once characterized cycle reversals have been less systematic since 2024, with the market digesting corrections more smoothly thanks to a more diversified and less leveraged buyer base. Market sentiment remains a key indicator, but it is no longer sufficient on its own to anticipate a structural bear market.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The real question Saylor<\/strong> is raising is this: if Bitcoin<\/strong> is now a global reserve asset in the process of being adopted at scale, then its price no longer follows a cycle \u2014 it follows an adoption curve<\/strong>. And on an adoption curve, entry points matter far less than the length of time you hold.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Related articles :<\/h3>\n\n\n\n