Neerav Trivedi

I started looking into Bitcoin since 2019 and observing market since then. Here I will express my views on Bitcoin based on my prior experience. Any view should not be considered as a financial advice.

21million

Deepak Kindo

Monir Shaikh

Mansingh Narwan

Abayas Hub

Rahidul Mondal

TABISH JAMAL

Asharaf bhai Memon

Vishawkarma Vishawkarma

Bitcoin’s famous four-year halving rhythm is giving way to a shorter, ETF- 
driven performance clock, argues ProCap Chief Investment Officer (CIO) Jeff 
Park in a new Substack essay. In his view, the dominant force in Bitcoin’s 
boom-bust dynamics is shifting “from mining economics to fund-manager 
economics,” with a new “two-year cycle” anchored in ETF flows and 
institutional return hurdles. Park starts by declaring that the traditional 
pattern built around halvings belongs to “the old Bitcoin.” Historically, 
programmed supply cuts compressed miner margins, pushed weaker operators out 
and reduced structural sell pressure. Combined with a powerful narrative, each 
halving triggered a reflexive loop of “early positioning, rising prices, media 
virality, retail FOMO and leveraged mania” that ended in a bust. That 
mechanism, he argues, is now significantly diluted. With most of Bitcoin’s 
eventual supply already circulating, each halving shaves off a smaller 
fraction of the total float. The “diminishing marginal inflation impact” means 
the issuance shock is too small to reliably drive the next cycle on its own. 
The ETF-Driven 2-Year Bitcoin Cycle Begins Instead, Park contends that Bitcoin 
is increasingly governed by how professional allocators behave inside ETF 
wrappers. He openly labels his framework as resting on “three heavy-handed, 
contestable assumptions.” Related Reading: Capriole Founder Not Bearish On 
Bitcoin Despite Headwinds—Here’s Why First, most institutional investors are 
de facto evaluated over one- to two-year horizons because of how liquid fund 
investment committees operate. Second, new net liquidity into Bitcoin will be 
dominated by ETF channels, making them the main footprint to watch. Third, the 
selling behavior of legacy “OG whales” remains the largest supply variable, 
but is treated as exogenous to his ETF-centric analysis. Within this lens, two 
concepts matter most: common-holder risk and calendar-year P&amp;L. Park notes 
that when “everyone owns the same thing,” flows can amplify both rallies and 
drawdowns. But he focuses on something easier to observe: the way annual 
performance crystallizes on December 31. For hedge funds in particular, “when 
volatility increases towards the end of the year” and there isn’t enough P&amp;L 
“baked in,” managers become more willing to sell their riskiest positions. The 
choice, he writes, is often “the difference between getting another shot to 
play in 2026, or getting fired.” Park leans on Ahoniemi and Jylhä’s 2011 paper 
Flows, Price Pressure, and Hedge Fund Returns, highlighting its finding that a 
large share of hedge-fund “alpha” is flow-driven and that return–reversal 
cycles stretch “almost two years.” This, he says, offers a blueprint for how 
liquidity and performance feedbacks could structure Bitcoin’s ETF era. He then 
sketches how a CIO might sell Bitcoin internally: as an asset expected to 
deliver something like a 25–30 percent compound annual return. On that basis, 
a position must generate roughly 50 percent over two years to justify its risk 
and fee drag. Park references Michael Saylor’s “30% CAGR for the next 20 
years” as a rough institutional hurdle. From there he builds a three-cohort 
thought experiment. Investors who bought via ETFs from inception through year- 
end 2024 are up around 100 percent in a single year, effectively having 
“pulled forward 2.6 years of performance.” A second cohort that entered on 1 
January 2025 is roughly 7 percent underwater, now needing “80%+ over the next 
year, or 50% over the next two years” to hit the same hurdle. A third group, 
holding from inception through the end of 2025, is up about 85 percent over 
two years—only slightly ahead of its 30 percent CAGR target. For that group, 
Park says, the live question becomes: “Do I sell and lock it now, or do I let 
it run longer?” Related Reading: Bitcoin Flashes A Triple Bearish Divergence: 
CMT Sounds The Alarm ETF flow data sharpen the picture. Park highlights that 
Bitcoin now trades near “an increasingly important price, $84k,” which he 
characterizes as roughly the aggregate cost basis of ETF flows to date. While 
2024 inflows carry substantial embedded gains, “almost none of the ETF flows 
in 2025 are in the green,” with March as a partial exception. October 2024, 
the largest inflow month, saw Bitcoin around $70,000; November 2024 closed 
near $96,000. On a 30 percent hurdle, Park estimates one-year targets of 
roughly $91,000 and $125,000 dollars for those vintages. June 2025 inflows 
near $107,000 imply a $140,000 target by June 2026. He argues that Bitcoin ETF 
AUM is now at an “inflection point,” where a 10 percent price drop would drag 
total AUM back to roughly its level at the start of the year. That would leave 
the ETF complex with little to show, in dollar P&amp;L, for 2025 despite taking on 
meaningful risk and inflows. The key takeaway, Park writes, is that investors 
must track not only the average ETF cost basis, but also “the moving average 
of that P&amp;L by vintage.” Those rolling profit profiles will, in his view, 
become the main “liquidity pressures and circuit breakers” for Bitcoin, 
eclipsing the old four-year halving template. His second conclusion cuts 
against retail intuition: “If Bitcoin price doesn’t move, but time moves 
forward, this is ultimately bad for Bitcoin in the institutional era.” In a 
fee-and-benchmark world, flat is not neutral; it is underperformance versus 
the 30 percent ROI that justified the allocation. That alone can trigger 
selling. “In summary,” Park concludes, “the 4-year cycle is definitely over.” 
Bitcoin will still be driven by marginal demand, marginal supply and profit- 
taking. But “the buyers have changed,” and with halving-driven supply shocks 
less decisive, it is the more “predictable” incentives of ETF 
managers—expressed over roughly two-year windows—that may now define Bitcoin’s 
market cycle. At press time, Bitcoin traded at $87,559. Featured image created 
with DALL.E, chart from TradingView.com

Bitcoin Is Now Tied To A 2-Year Cycle, Warns Investment Firm CIO

Starknet’s v0.14.1 upgrade brings faster blocks, BLAKE hash, and JSON-RPC 
improvements; STRK token still trades near multi-week lows after major 
changes. Starknet deployed its v0.14.1 mainnet upgrade on November 25, 
according to an announcement from StarkWare, the development company behind…

Starknet mainnet upgrade delivers faster blocks and new hash standard

Strategy says it has a 70-year dividend runway even after Bitcoin’s slide, 
rolling out a new credit rating metric to ease fears over DAT liquidation 
risks.

Strategy unveils new credit gauge to calm debt fears amid Bitcoin crash

The SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee will discuss tokenized equities and AI 
disclosure rules December 4, signaling regulatory focus on new technologies. 
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission&#8217;s Investor Advisory Committee will 
convene on December 4 to discuss tokenized equities and…

SEC committee to review tokenized equities and AI rules December 4

Blockrise secures a MiCA licence in the Netherlands, unlocking regulated 
Bitcoin custody and trading while paving the way for BTC-backed business loans 
across Europe.

All users