jamey said:
Heineken-Ashi said:
The question I ask you all..
The last 3 BTC cycles had halving 1.5 years before their post-halving top, with the minimum drawdown after the top of 77.5%. The first topped a year after halving with an 86% drawdown.
Is anyone here convicted enough to hold past October?
I saw something the other day where I guy talked about the cycles and how the draw down percentage was less each cycle. I forget his name but they called him the godfather of crypto, old white dude. That said he still believes in the cycle and sells and buys back in accordingly
That said now we have more institutional investors, pension funds...etc. are they gonna play that game?
Will it be even less severe this time as a result?
That said i own IBIT that I've been dollar cost averaging into it since Jan 2024 so I own shares in the $20, 30, 40, 50, and now 60 dollar range.
I may sell the top cost lots in the $50 and 60 range or may not. Im trying to figure out how to handle it
Last Cycle
- Halving - May 10, 2020
- Top - Nov 10th, 2021 - $68,997.75
- 548 days halving to top
- Bottom - Nov 21, 2022 - $15,479.42
- 376 days top to bottom
- 77.57% drawdown top to bottom
- 8.55% shorter drawdown than previous cycle
Previous Cycle
- Halving - July 8, 2016
- Top - Dec 17th, 2017 - $19,785.22
- 527 days halving to top
- Bottom - Dec 15, 2018 - $3,125.90
- 363 days top to bottom
- 84.20% drawdown top to bottom
- 2.85% shorter drawdown than first cycle
1st Cycle
- Halving - Nov 27, 2012
- Top - Nov 29, 2013 - $1,242
- 367 days halving to top
- Bottom - Jan 14, 2015 - $166.45
- 410 days top to bottom
- 86.60% drawdown top to bottom
So yes, you can argue each one is getting smaller in its drawdown. If you want to assume the next drawdown is the jump in % shorter % drawdown than the last, youd be looking at a 58% drawdown this next time. But you'd be going off a 3 occurrence trend which is a very low sample size. In reality, the drawdowns probably have nothing to do with math and everything to do with where supply and demand finally meet. Maybe the next drawdown is significantly less. But maybe it takes double the time to find a bottom with a larger drawdown. There's simply not enough history to know the answer. And if you overlay BTC with money supply contraction and expansion, the tops line up near or at equity and risk asset tops and the bottoms with equity and risk asset bottoms. So in reality, BTC's fate is likely tied to the liquidity availability in the broader financial system and likely nothing to do with its own mechanics. But again, due to the small sample size, its an unknown.
This is why I also say that Bitcoin actually has to perform like a safe haven in a risk off environment, and actually needs to exist in a bear market, before you can definitively say its a new paradigm and / or digital gold. It's only ever existed in a regime of historic monetary stimulus during the most parabolic bull market of all time. I'm not a complete BTC denier. But I'm also not willing to tie my fate to something that's only ever succeeded when money supply expands.
The argument will be that "they will never stop printing money, so BTC will always outperform everything". I can't say that's definitively wrong. But I've also studied history and know what happens when the long-term debt fueled economic growth cycle runs out of steam. It doesn't do so because they stop adding debt or stop printing money. It does so because the debt becomes a noose and money printing no longer does what everyone thinks and ultimately does the reverse. It fuels the collapse. Is that upon us? Maybe? To believe BTC is the new paradigm NOW, and that this time is different, is to believe that the next attempt at stimulus or QE will work like the last ones did. I've explained for years now why I DONT think that is the case. If they wanted to do QE, they would. But they can't, because this time, we are already in the debt death spiral. QE would fuel the collapse. So what are they attempting this time? Loosening of bank regulations and allowing them to monetize their reserves held at the FED through stablecoin issuance. All this is.. is QE.. except not by the FED. This time its the banks performing it. And while they are doing it, its money NOT being loaned to the public for economic stimulation. Its all nothing more than pouring gas on the fire.. keeping the charade going while their balance sheets are full of underwater treasuries. 2023 saw BTFP. That was literally a substitute for QE because THE FED CANT DO QE. They cant even lower rates. Once the public caught on to the scam of BTFP the FED played dumb and shut it down. This time its bank QE through stablecoins. It might kick the can. But its not going to end up solving anything. Like I said, fuel on the fire.
We will ultimately see. I've never been scared to be wrong. I've also never been scared to put my thesis out there. Nobody knows the future. Only what similar conditions in the past say the future could be.
