Video summary
The speaker sets out to rigorously test the popular Bitcoin four-year cycle theory using extensive data analysis, aiming to prove that the widely accepted narrative is incorrect. While many investors rely on a simple calendar-based timeline, the creator argues that neither proponents nor skeptics have actually gathered the necessary evidence to validate their claims. To ensure credibility, he reveals that he trades this research with real money and has been studying halving patterns since 2020, even publishing an academic paper titled "Bitcoin runs on a clock." His primary objective is to move beyond the vague concept of a four-year rhythm and instead measure market cycles in days relative to the Bitcoin halving events, discovering that the tops consistently occur within a tight 21-day window following each halving.
To determine if this specific timing was merely luck or a genuine pattern, he conducted a simulation involving 10,000 "fake" Bitcoin price histories where daily movements were randomized but retained their volatility and crash characteristics. The results showed that while random markets naturally exhibit rough four-year rhythms due to noise, none of the 10,000 fake scenarios produced tops that aligned with the halving schedule within the observed window. This proves that the correlation between the market peak and the halving is not a coincidence but a unique signal tied specifically to the supply shock event. Furthermore, he tested alternative theories such as US election cycles, global money printing, and fixed calendars, finding that liquidity metrics often move in opposite directions to Bitcoin's price or miss timing windows by months, whereas the halving clock remains consistent across every cycle.
The video also addresses why traditional technical indicators like the Pi Cycle, MVRV, and Stock-to-Flow models have failed recently, explaining that these tools were calibrated for previous market conditions where prices reached extreme highs to trigger alarms. As Bitcoin's booms become less explosive in each subsequent cycle, these indicators no longer signal tops because the price never reaches the thresholds required to activate them. Additionally, the speaker notes that while ETF inflows and Wall Street participation introduced new buyers in 2024, they did not disrupt the halving schedule; instead, the market continued to top precisely on time, reinforcing the idea that the cycle is anchored by code rather than external economic factors or investor sentiment.
Ultimately, the research concludes that the "four-year cycle" is a misnomer for a mechanism locked directly into the Bitcoin protocol via the halving events. By measuring from the halving date rather than the previous peak, the timing of both market bottoms and tops becomes significantly more accurate, with the bottom prediction being 25 times harder to fake when anchored to the upcoming halving. The speaker uses this insight to provide specific buy windows for the current bear market and predicts the next major top will occur in late 2029, roughly three years after the 2028 halving. He encourages viewers to verify these findings using public data and his free tools, emphasizing that while the calendar story is a myth, the underlying clock driven by halvings is a real and exploitable edge for investors.
Read the full video transcript
Today, I'm going to try to prove the
four-year cycle wrong with data. By now,
I'm sure you've heard of the Bitcoin
four-year cycle. Some people love it,
some people hate it. But what nobody
wants to admit is that neither side of
these camps has actually gone out,
gathered the data, and done the work to
prove it. So, that's exactly what I'm
setting out to do. I trade this cycle
with real money, which means being wrong
is expensive. So, in this video, I'm
going to walk you through every single
test took and exactly what the results
showed. Basically, every test was
designed to kill the four-year cycle
theory, right? So, I'm testing every
popular every other popular theory out
there against the four-year cycle
theory, and you know, the truth is
what's going to come out on top at the
end of this all. So, I'm just going to
be testing them both, and we'll see what
happens. I'm not sure yet. So, first of
all, why trust a crypto bro YouTuber?
Well, I'm very invested in this research
and in these results. I have a lot of
money riding on this, and if I'm wrong,
then I'll be probably applying for jobs
at McDonald's very soon. But in all
seriousness, I've been doing this since
2016 full-time, and I've been
researching, studying, and following the
cycle halving patterns since 2020. I'm
actually in the middle of publishing an
academic paper based on all of this
research that I've done over the years
called Bitcoin runs on a clock. So, you
guys can see, this is this is real
research, guys. Everything was
back-tested, everything was double,
triple, quadruple-checked.
Um, and if you guys are interested in
the really nerdy stuff like this, then
I'll link it in the description below,
so you guys can also go through it. As
you can see, guys, I'm not playing
around. I've done a a of research. Let's
go ahead and jump into the first test.
And in test one, I'm going to make the
best case against the four-year cycle
theory. Three dots. And three dots prove
nothing, and that's basically what this
entire theory stands on, right? A line
through three dots is not proof. It's a
coincidence waiting to break. It's
statistically insignificant. And that's
probably one of the strongest arguments
that the skeptics have of the four-year
cycles, and you know, we can't disprove
that. With three dots, as you guys can
see, is pretty much nothing to really go
on, right? You can put different time
frames, and they all somewhat land in
the range of each dot, right? Whether
it's four years, whether it's three and
a half years, or whether it's 4.4 years,
it doesn't really matter. They all land
in that range, right? So, you know, you
can just call it a four-year cycle, and
you know, more or less, it's it's going
to be true. It's going to fall in the in
in that range. So, with just three dots,
it's just not enough information to know
what's true. So, what I ended up doing
is I stopped measuring the cycle as the
four-year cycle, right? Which is what
everyone does. And I started measuring
it from
days from the halving, right? So, days
from the halving instead of just, you
know, four years, right?
And then I wanted to see where the lines
up. So, instead of asking how many years
between each top, I started asking how
many days after halving did Bitcoin top,
right? So, kind of a different question.
And you can see that the three tops
landed in this sequence. In 2017, 525
days after the halving. In 2021, 546
days after the halving. 2025, 534 days
after the halving. So, this piqued my
curiosity because they're all within a
21-day window. Now, this could still all
be a coincidence, so we have to test it.
And that's exactly what I did. I tested
it to try to prove that it was just
luck. And here's exactly how I did that.
I took Bitcoin's real daily moves, every
single up and down, and I shuffled the
order to build 10,000 fake Bitcoins.
Same wild swings, same brutal crashes,
just scrambled into different orders.
The one thing that fakes don't have is a
real halving schedule. And believe it or
not, those fakes did crash every few
years, about four big crashes each, just
like the real Bitcoin. So, that part,
the rough four-year rhythm, turns out to
be nothing special. It's just what any
wild crashy thing does on its own. But,
then the real test. Out of all 10,000
fakes, how many topped in a tight
three-week window lined up to a halving?
And the answer to that question was
zero.
Not a single one. Only the real Bitcoin
landed within this window all three
times. Everything else was completely
wild and random. Only the real Bitcoin
does that. Zero out of 10,000. So, the
rough four-year rhythm is real, but it's
just noise. Every wild market has it.
The thing that's actually special, the
thing 10,000 fakes could never copy, is
the lock to the halving. So, the rhythm
itself isn't the signal. The lock to the
halving is. Now, three cycles still
can't tell me why this happens, so I'm
not going to claim proof. What I'll
claim is this, though.
10,000 fake Bitcoins and zero matched
the same tops three times in the same
window. That's how rare this is. And I
don't even need to know why it works
because it's tied to the halving, an
event that I can see coming in years in
advance. Every other cycle theory out
there is stuck with the same exact three
cycles that I have. The difference
between their theory and my theory is
that I just put mine through a much
harder test, and they haven't. So, we've
proven that time is not just random or
just luck with data. Now, let's move on
to the next test, which is test number
two. Is the cycle dying? Because the
booms get smaller every cycle. So, who
cares if you can time it if there's no
money left to make.
And they're definitely right about one
thing, the booms are definitely
shrinking. Each top was a little less
crazy than the one before, but that's
not the cycle dying. As Bitcoin gets
bigger, it just gets less explosive. And
here's the part that ends the argument.
I asked the obvious question, is it even
worth timing this thing or should you
just buy and hold like everyone else
tells you to? So, I ran the actual
numbers on every cycle Bitcoin has ever
had. The rule was dead simple. Sell when
the clock says that you're near the top
and sit out the crash, then buy back
when the clock says you're near the
bottom, versus just holding the whole
way through.
Timing won every single time. Every
single cycle. More money and a smaller
crash every time, including the one that
we're in right now. Stack it all
together and timing the clock made about
50 times more money than just holding.
In this cycle, the crash was about half
as deep. So, no, the cycle isn't fading
into something useless. Timing it has
beaten just holding in every cycle
Bitcoin has ever had. That's not a fun
fact, that's the single biggest edge in
this entire market. You can see on the
screen 53.1 x more money than just
holding. But there's a much bigger
problem with everything that I just
showed you. What if it was never really
about the halving at all? What if
something else is actually pulling the
strings and the halving just gets credit
for it? The election cycle, a plain
calendar, money printing, and if any of
those is the real engine behind
Bitcoin's movement, then this whole
story of the four-year cycle is just a
coincidence. So, test five is all about
answering this question. Is it even the
halving or is it something else? So, the
theory is that there's a lot of things
that run roughly on a four-year rhythm.
I mean, we even proved that during the
first test ourselves when we randomized
Bitcoin's daily price action, you saw
that some of the fake random Bitcoins
still ran in four-year rhythms. Now, a
lot of the macro events also happen to
run in four-year cycles. Presidential
elections, midterm elections, and the
biggest one of them all, the money
supply. So, I started with a very simple
question. Is it even the halving or is
it any four-year clock? I lined up the
three tops against every four-year clock
that I could find. The halving locks
them into a 21-day window. The US
election cycle, it's about 68 days,
three times looser. 2,000 random
four-year clocks, about 71 days, and
then a plain four-year calendar, 1,423
days, completely falls apart. So, it's
not just any four-year rhythm, it's the
halving. So, from this we know it's not
the US elections, it's not just random
four-year clocks, and it's not a fixed
four-year calendar. So, what about
liquidity? One of the most popular
theories in the Bitcoin space,
especially when it comes to the
four-year halving, is that Bitcoin
actually runs
based on money printing, based on global
liquidity, right? So, as liquidity goes
up, Bitcoin's price also goes up. So,
that would mean that as liquidity drops,
Bitcoin's price would also have to drop,
right? So, I mean, it makes sense. So,
that's kind of the theory that a lot of
people like to kind of throw out there,
right? Without actually checking data
cuz nobody in crypto actually checks
data. And then they say that the
liquidity just happens to run in 4-year
cycles. I said, "Okay, let's look at the
data and see if it's actually true
because this is actually not that hard
to find the answer to." So, we're going
to run this through four different
rounds. In round one, we're going to
check does money printing actually
predict where Bitcoin goes next? In
round two, we're going to look at the
timing. In round three, we're going to
do a real-world test. And in round four,
we'll kind of put everything together
and see how everything actually relates.
Does Bitcoin actually move based on
money supply? So, let's take a look at
Bitcoin's year-to-year correlation with
money. In 2017, liquidity was going up
and at the same time, Bitcoin was also
going up that year. So, this was pretty
much the only year where they both went
up at the same time. In 2021, it was
pretty much zero. It's minus 0.1. I
mean, that's not much. Uh so, pretty
much a zero correlation. And then in
2025,
it was the complete opposite. They
basically went in opposite directions.
And the economy or business cycle, as a
lot of people like to call it, actually
flips the same exact way. So, it went
from a 0.42 correlation in 2017 all the
way to a minus 0.79.
So, opposite side correlation. Meaning
that they went in two completely
different directions, no correlation
whatsoever. Now, in round two, we're
looking at the timing. The halving clock
hits the top within about 10 days. Money
printing's nearest turning point misses
by 200. 1 year by 227, the next cycle by
253,
and then one cycle it did get pretty
close at 67. So, on average 10 days
versus 200 plus, I mean, it's not even
close. Money printing does not help time
the top of Bitcoin in any scenario. So,
now the last and final test that we're
going to look at is the real-world test,
right? From 2024 till right now. So,
since the 2024 halving, money printing
has only gone up. If money printing were
the engine, then Bitcoin should have
just kept it ripping, right? It should
have continued this exact trend that
money printing went in. Instead,
throughout 2024, Bitcoin was basically
trending down while money printing was
trending up. 2025, of course, when we
had our actual bull market rally, it
went up with money printing at that
time. Then it topped out, right? And
dropped back down. The whole time money
printing was
still going up. After the summer, it
went back up, September, October, and
then we eventually topped out, right?
Again, money printing continued going up
throughout that time.
And then we ran into the the the current
bear market that we're in right now. You
can see that we've just been falling and
falling and falling deeper and deeper
every single day, and money printing has
gone in the complete opposite direction.
So, once again, with this round three
real-world test, if printing were the
engine, Bitcoin should have kept going
up. However, it topped on schedule and
fell on schedule. Nothing to do with the
printing. So, if we put all of that
together, the only thing that has
survived is the actual halving clock.
Both money printing and the economy,
although they were correlated for one
cycle, they have never been correlated
again and have actually got less and
less correlated over time. The only one
that has been consistent every single
cycle is the actual halving clock, and
it's not even close. So, now let's move
on to the fourth test, and here we're
going to be talking about the famous
indicators. I'm talking about the Pi
Cycle, the MVRV,
the stock-to-flow model, right? People
built entire reputations on these
indicators. So, I put all of these
famous indicators that have been
accurate in the past, calling the tops,
calling the bottoms, I put them to the
test. What I found with these is that
they called past tops for pretty much a
decade, and then they just stopped
working. So, the Pi Cycle top indicator,
for example, at first it nailed the top
basically for a decade straight, then in
2021,
something weird happened that had never
happened before.
It called the top 210
days
early, not late. Early. And then in
2025, the biggest top we've ever had in
Bitcoin's entire history,
silent.
Nothing.
No signals, no indicators. And this
isn't just the Pi Cycle indicator, this
was every bull market indicator. The
MVRV was exactly the same. It had hit
every top before it, and in 2025,
silence. Nothing. And how about the
famous stock-to-flow indicator? This
guy, PlanB, I can't believe I honestly
can't believe he's still posting about
it. Um, he built an entire basically
business around this, right? 2.1 million
followers on a model that is wrong,
right? And then of course, now he
changed his
his bio here, all models are wrong, some
are useful. Okay. Um,
but dude, this indicator was probably
the most famous indicator of them all.
It would go up, then it would crash. It
would go up, then it would crash. It
would go up, then it would crash. Then
all of a sudden, silence, nothing,
right? The last time that this indicator
was relevant was in 2021.
Guess what? Bitcoin's price can't reach
the top anymore. It It can't do it.
Look, it it was red
here, towards the bottom, not even
halfway to the top, towards the bottom.
Right now, the stock-to-flow model has
Bitcoin's price at $500,000,
by the way, just in case you were
wondering. And by the time we get to
2029 bull market, I it's probably going
to be around $1 million, which is not
going to happen in 2029, but it's
entertaining nonetheless, right? But
here's exactly why those indicators
don't work anymore and why they will
only continue to get worse and worse and
worse with every cycle. These tools are
built to sound an alarm when Bitcoin
hits some crazy highs. But remember test
two? Every top is less crazy than the
last. So eventually, the price never
gets high enough to trip the alarms, and
the alarm just goes quiet for good. So
that means those indicators will never
again be able to call a top. And the
more cycles that pass, the less reliable
those indicators will ever be. You can
see the clear pattern here. And that's
just a first problem, right? There's a
second problem as well, and it's called
the honest test. So, when you test these
honestly, meaning to test it versus just
pure luck, none of them hold up. Zero
out of 36 indicators passed the honest
test, or the is it just
getting lucky or just a coincidence
test. The only indicator that took
consistently pass every test, even the
honest test, we did that in test one, is
the halving clock. All right, guys,
we've arrived at our fifth and final
test. And this test is called the buyer
changed. In 2024, the ETFs showed up and
Wall Street became the big buyer. If the
cycle was ever just emotion, this is
where it should have stopped, right?
This is where everything should have
snapped. ETFs now hold about 1.29
million Bitcoin, which is pretty much
about 6% of all Bitcoin in circulation.
Now, I'll be honest with you. I don't
really have a clean experiment here.
It's just one event, but it's the same
stretch as the money printing test,
right? The one window where two
different things should have broken the
cycle at once. And the 2025 top still
landed 534
after the halving. We had a brand new
buyer with Wall Street coming in, and we
had money printing surging up every
month, right? So, this, if it was either
one of these, it should have obviously
broken the cycle, right? 2025 landed in
the dead center of the cycle at day 534.
Dead center of that 21-day window that
it continues to land within. The ETFs,
the money printing,
nothing changed the schedule. Nothing
changed the cycle. The thing that should
have broken it didn't. So, that's five
tests done, guys. Most of what people
believe about this cycle is literally
proven wrong with data. Okay, these are
all tests that I ran with all the data
that I have available to me. And it's
not only available to me, you guys can
run these same tests. The data's
available for everybody, right? This is
public information. I recommend you guys
to go out and run these tests on your
own. Don't just take my word for it,
right?
I've deliberately been putting the clock
through the test. I've been testing
every single popular theory out there,
and I put it up against the halving
clock, trying to find something,
anything that tells me, that shows me,
that has some facts behind it telling me
that the cycle is wrong, telling me that
the cycle is dead, telling me that this
is just a coincidence, it's just luck.
Now, these tests did prove that one
thing was wrong with the 4-year cycle
theory, and it's the calendar itself.
The 4 years. The cycle is not built
around 4 years, it's locked into the
halving. If you remember in our last
video, we spoke about how Satoshi
Nakamoto literally coded the halving
into Bitcoin, and in the comments he
wrote approximately 4 years.
This is literally in the code. So, the
easiest way to think about the halving,
so picture a clock face. The hand of the
clock is the timing of how long it's
been since the halving. Every cycle that
hand lands in almost the same exact
spot.
525 days, 546 days, 534 days. The hand
basically never moves. Now, the distance
out from the center is the second
number, how far above normal Bitcoin has
stretched. And here's what normal means.
For 15 years, Bitcoin's price has
roughly traced one long smooth curve
upward. I drew a line down the middle of
the curve using only past prices, never
peaking at the future the way the stock
to floated. The line is the fair normal
price at any moment. How far above it
you are tells you how overheated things
have gotten. Every cycle the hand of the
clock lands in the same place, but the
distance shrinks. The booms cool off.
However, the timing does not and that's
the whole point. A fixed clock plus a
shrinking boom.
And it's not just the top and bottom.
Line up every cycle by days since the
halving and the whole journey rhymes.
The boom, the top, the crash, the
recovery, all landing in the same place.
And you can run this test on altcoins as
well. Look at Ethereum. Ethereum has no
halving of its own, yet its tops landed
within days of Bitcoin's halving clock.
And in 2021, the exact same day. A coin
with no halving still turns on this
clock. So, it isn't just a Bitcoin
supply quirk. It's a market-wide clock.
Now, I almost called the bottom the weak
part of trying to predict the halving or
of the halving clock. Because if you
measure from the last top, a random
crash could fake this timing about 40%
of the time. So, that's almost a coin
flip. That was making the bottom look
like noise. However, if you measure it
from the next halving, a random crash
could only fake this timing about 1.5%
of the time.
That is 25 times harder to fake.
Measured this way, the bottom snaps
tight just like the top. The majority of
people are measuring from the wrong
event, which is the same mistake that I
was making. But we need [clears throat]
to remember, Bitcoin isn't pinned to a
calendar. We killed that already in our
first test. It's pinned to the halving
clock. Not the top behind it. The same
lessons as the tops. So, if we put both
of those clocks together, they happen to
land in the same exact window. So, if
you're calling the bottom from the bull
market top, which is October 6th plus
about 12 months, it gives us a window
between October 5th to November 16th as
the date for the bottom, right? That's
the buy window. And then if we do it
from the next halving, so we're counting
back from 2028,
that gives us a date range between
October 21st to November 19th. So, the
overlapping area is October 21st to
November 16th. That overlapping area
there is the highest probability for a
bottom and for that bottom window. So,
two separate clocks pointing at the same
exact window and the tightest one is
anchored to the halving that's still
ahead, right? That almost never happens
by accident. So, now we can take the
same idea and just kind of play it
forward and kind of figure out where the
next top is going to be basically 3
years ahead. And this is the same exact
way that I called the 2025 top 9 months
ahead. So, now we're going to give it a
shot to do it 3 years ahead publicly.
And hopefully this ages well. We'll see
how it plays out. So, I'm very confident
about the year for the next top, which
is uh very likely in 2029. Now, the
exact weeks is the one that we're still
we still have to wait on, right? Because
it locks between 525 to 546
days after the next halving. And the
dates of the next halving is going to
drift between now and the 2028 halving.
So, the day that it actually hits, then
I can give you a more precise window to
selling,
but for now, we just know it's probably
going to be sometime in the late 2029.
Once we get the exact timing of that
halving, then we can lock in a sell
window, just like we did in October of
2025. So, let me be straight about what
I did and didn't prove. I set out to
kill the 4-year cycle, and I believe
that I did. I at least killed the
popular version of it, the idea that
it's about a calendar. And the calendar
is just a story that people tell. But,
there is a truth underneath that story,
and it's the lock to the halving. That
that lock is real. It literally survived
every test that we threw at it, and
nothing else even came close. So, this
gives me the confidence on making these
public calls, like I have been doing for
the last year, and putting my money
where my mouth is, putting my money on
the line during these dates, the same
way I did it in 2025. So, I'm putting
two predictions down for this year,
which is of course the bottom in October
to mid-November 2026. Two separate
clocks point at the same window, and the
tighter one is anchored to the halving
that hasn't even happened yet. I'm very
confident in this buy window for the
bottom. And then the next one, it's it's
a looser
uh
a looser prediction that I'm putting
down, which is the next top in 2029. As
you guys know, we're waiting for that
halving that actually happened. Once we
have that set date, then we can get the
exact days of the uh sell window during
that next top. If you guys like, you can
go to bitcoin-daily.com.
You can go over here where it says
cycle, and you can go down here, and
you'll be able to see this indicator
that I created called the Satoshi Clock.
This is completely free. This will show
you exactly where we are, exactly where
the fair value is, and more or less when
that buy window opens. You can also
scroll down here to the cycle spiral
based on this Satoshi clock that I
created. So, you can see here 2025,
2021, 2017, right? This is the sell
signal, and then this green one here is
the buy window. So, you can see how
close all those bottoms have been as
well. And then this one right here is
where we currently are right now. This
is all updated daily. So, if you guys
want to basically keep track of all of
this, you guys can do so for free right
here. Now, if you guys want to throw
these indicators on your TradingView
like I have here, then you can get
access to these as well through our
Discord. These are two different
indicators. So, the first one is again
the Satoshi clock, right? It gives us
our sell windows and our buy windows.
You can see that they're color-coded.
They also have signs on each of them.
Then we also have the fair value price
here and standard deviations to the top,
standard deviations to the bottom. So,
you can see exactly where we are right
now today and exactly when we get we're
going to get to that next buy window.
You have all this information here in
the bottom as well. And then the second
indicator that I created is called the
cycle map. Basically, what I found in my
research is that Bitcoin runs in three
different phases. We're currently in the
bust phase or the bear market, right?
Then the next phase begins right here.
That's the recovery phase, which starts
in about 138 days. You can see right
here it says recovery. And then after
that, we go into the boom phase, right?
That's usually the bull market. So, you
can see exactly how it plays out in real
time here. This basically told you
exactly when to sell, when to stay out
of the market, and when to buy back in.
So, if you would have sold up here,
bought back here, rode it all the way up
during recovery, rode it all the way up
during the boom, then sold right here,
and right now you'd be sitting in cash
like I am, just kind of waiting until we
get back into recovery. And you could go
all the way back in
on this, all the way to the back the
beginning of time for Bitcoin, and
you're going to see that things played
out the same exact way over and over and
over again, which is how this indicator
was created. It's just basically looking
back on historical data and deciding in
what phase the market is based on that.
If you want access to these, you can go
to bitcoindaily.vip. I'll put a link in
the description. Sign up for one of our
memberships, and then you'll have
complete access to both those indicators
and any other indicators that we create
in the future going forward, as well as
any trades that I take daily. I share
all of those in the Discord. You can see
that we've been killing it so far this
month in June, and overall, you can see
that we've been killing it this year.
We're actually on a 30 and six run right
now over the last 36 trades. So, you
guys can check that out as well. I have
a 7-day free trial for those of you that
want to just check it out first and see
whether or not it's for you. So, now
that I've proven the halving cycle is
real, you know exactly the time frame
for the buy window. Next thing you need
to know is the pricing, right? Where
what price range is it going to be in by
the time we hit that buy window? And
that one is a little bit more difficult
to try to predict. So, it's hard to give
an exact price, but we can give a zone
where it is likely to go into. So, my
next video, I'm going to be doing
200,000 simulations to try to get that
window for you guys with statistics, but
for now, you can watch this video right
here. This was my last video on when
will Bitcoin bottom. Not only do I tell
you the date there, but I give you a
range, and that range is very similar to
the 200,000 simulations that I'm doing
in the next video. So, depending when
you watch this one, you're going to want
to watch this one as well or the next
one that I'm about to drop in the
future.
My future, maybe it's your past. Just
depends when you watch this video.