Bitcoin’s four-year rhythm survives — but politics and liquidity are running the show now

Why the old story about halvings feels familiar — and why Thielen says it no longer explains everything

Markus Thielen of 10x Research argues that Bitcoin’s rough four-year beat — the cycle traders have used to time rallies and pullbacks — is still alive. But the reason it works has changed. Where once the post-halving squeeze on miner supply was the clearest trigger, Thielen says today politics, central-bank liquidity and big regulatory moves now do most of the steering. The claim landed as markets juggle central-bank signals, fresh regulatory guidance on custody and ongoing ETF and custody conversations — all of which are shaping how easy it is to buy, hold and trade Bitcoin (BTC).

The practical market hook is simple: Bitcoin’s tradability and flows matter more for price than an abstract supply cut. That shifts the clock for traders and investors away from the halving calendar and toward macro events, elections and official rule changes.

How 10x Research recasts the four‑year pattern: supply shock to policy and flows

Thielen’s core argument starts with the familiar history: halvings have coincided with big bull runs because they reduce miner rewards and tighten newly minted supply. But he says that link has weakened. Two forces, he argues, now play a larger role.

First, liquidity from central banks and large asset managers changes how money chases risk. When central banks ease, investors hunt yield and alternative returns — and crypto often benefits. When they tighten, risk assets sell off in sync. That macro tide moves Bitcoin with equities in ways that can mimic or swamp a halving-driven rally.

Second, politics and regulation now affect access to Bitcoin more directly than before. Law changes, custody rules, and political decisions shape whether big managers, pension funds and retail platforms can hold crypto. When those gates open or close, capital flows in or out quickly — sometimes faster than miner-defined supply dynamics can act.

Put together, Thielen says these drivers can create repeated peaks about four years apart without the halving itself being the causal engine. The halving remains a structural event, he allows, but it’s often the macro and legal context that decides how big and how fast a move becomes.

What this means for traders, ETFs and portfolio allocation

For traders, the shift changes the calendar. Instead of anchoring huge bets to the halving date, Thielen’s framework suggests watching central-bank meetings, major election cycles and big regulatory milestones. Those events can trigger price moves of similar size and often on shorter notice.

For ETFs and large allocators, the message is about access and timing. If custody rules become clearer or if regulators signal acceptance, flows into spot products and exchange-traded structures can surge — and that inflow can move price quickly. Conversely, a regulatory chill or confiscatory rhetoric can squeeze demand even if miner supply tightens that year.

At the portfolio level, the practical change is a nudge toward active timing against macro events. Investors who want exposure to BTC may still hold a multi-year allocation, but Thielen’s view supports trimming or adding exposure around major liquidity inflection points — not just the halving.

Politics, central-bank liquidity and custody moves you can see right now

There are tangible signs that the thesis is already active. Central banks have moved through a lengthy tightening cycle in recent years and market chatter about pivots or continued tightness creates clear windows where risk appetite changes. Election calendars in large economies mean policy uncertainty and potential rule changes that can directly affect crypto markets and institutional adoption.

On the regulatory side, recent guidance and public discussion about custody and broker-dealer frameworks have made custody easier to imagine for big institutions — and harder if authorities step back. That dynamic shows up in flow behavior: when custody clarity improves, spot products and trading platforms report higher inflows; when headlines raise questions, flows stall or reverse.

On-chain and market-flow indicators add color without needing exact numbers. Custody inflows, exchange reserve trends, and ETF subscription patterns have shown that capital can move in sharp bursts around policy or approval signals. Those bursts often line up with macro and political events, supporting Thielen’s idea that access and liquidity now have outsized effects.

Where this idea could fail — and the risks investors can’t ignore

The counterargument is straightforward: halvings still matter. If miner rewards fall enough relative to demand, supply-side pressure can be real and persistent. In thin liquidity conditions, even a modest supply shock could drive a big price move.

Other risks to Thielen’s thesis include sudden liquidity shocks, hostile regulation in major markets, and macro surprises like a sharp inflation spike or banking stress. Any of those can break correlations and create price moves that don’t fit neatly into a politics-or-liquidity frame. Finally, behavioral factors — retail fear and greed — can amplify moves in ways that defy neat, repeatable cycles.

Practical takeaway for investors — what to watch next

If you trade or allocate to Bitcoin with Thielen’s framing in mind, focus on a short list of actionable signals: central-bank meeting windows and language about liquidity; key election dates and expected regulatory calendars; public guidance from custody and securities authorities; and big ETF flow reports and exchange reserve trends. Those items will likely matter more to timing than the halving date alone.

Markus Thielen and 10x Research don’t deny the halving’s role entirely. Their point is that, today, politics and liquidity often decide whether a halving sparks a rally or is a mute event. For investors that means watching the policy headlines as closely as the crypto calendar — and keeping risk controls ready for the fast moves that those headlines can provoke.

Sources

• cointelegraph.com
• cointelegraph.com
• cointelegraph.com
• cointelegraph.com