2026-01-17 15:50:18

#比特币2026年行情展望 Is the halving cycle about to become invalid? A major shift in market logic🔄

This round of market behavior is a bit different. The "four-year halving cycle" of Bitcoin may be being redefined.

What used to drive the market? Retail investors following trends, cyclical rotations, the rise and fall of speculative fervor. But now, the players entering the market have changed—the sovereign funds are deploying, large ETFs are accumulating, and listed companies are incorporating Bitcoin into their financial statements. These institutional-level "whales" are not rushing for the halving event; they are buying long-term value reserves and liquidity hedges.

Once the allocation logic of mainstream funds shifts, the entire market rhythm changes accordingly. Industry insiders speculate that, in this wave of global asset reallocation, Bitcoin could reach $250,000. Sounds crazy? Actually, this is an inevitable result of macro liquidity shifts and re-evaluation of risk assets.

The characteristic of the new cycle is: volatility may narrow, but the upward trend will be more sustained and robust.

The question is— in this era of the old and new forces exchanging roles, what truly supports value? Perhaps it’s worth thinking more about.

BTC-0,28%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

12 Likes

Reward
12
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

SundayDegen

· 01-20 15:49

Institutional takeover is the real deal; retail investors' halving stories should retire. --- $250,000? Fine, let's see if it can break 100,000 first before bragging. --- Is the sovereign fund really here, or is it just another round of marketing hype? It's a bit uncertain. --- Narrowing volatility with a sustained upward trend sounds unbelievable. What are they even talking about? --- It sounds impressive, but who can guarantee that institutions won't sell at high levels? --- Liquidity hedging sounds sophisticated, but it's really just betting on macro policies. --- A new cycle, a new story—there's always a new cycle. I don't believe you. --- No matter what the power shift is, if the bottom line collapses, everything is doomed.

View OriginalReply0

MetaverseVagabond

· 01-19 06:35

$250,000? Are institutions really that powerful? It feels like retail investors are about to get wiped out again.

View OriginalReply0

NFTRegretDiary

· 01-18 21:28

$250,000? Wake up, brother. Do sovereign funds really think it's that simple? Can institutional entry guarantee stability? I doubt it. In the end, retail investors still end up holding the bag. The idea that halving is ineffective is too absolute. Just change the cycle form and keep going. When mainstream funds withdraw, the volatility narrows? Not at all. It still crashes as usual. I just want to know, who calculated the figure of 250,000? Is it really that scientific?

View OriginalReply0

GreenCandleCollector

· 01-17 16:19

Institutional bottom-fishing has really changed the game; retail investors' traditional cycle theory might truly be outdated. 250,000? First, we need to see when macro liquidity can completely reverse. Narrowing volatility actually makes things more difficult; how to profit from the spread... Can sovereign funds entering guarantee a rise? I remain skeptical. This is the new stage of capital game; we have to follow the institutions.

View OriginalReply0

SelfSovereignSteve

· 01-17 16:11

Institutions entering the market are changing the game. Are retail investors still waiting for the halving? Wake up --- 250,000 sounds great, but steady growth is really harder to profit from than sudden surges and crashes --- Sovereign funds are already deploying, and we're still debating the halving cycle... the gap is huge --- The question is, do institutions really hold long-term, or is it just another round of cutting the leeks? --- Narrowing volatility actually tests psychological resilience more; retail investors simply can't hold on --- Liquidity hedging sounds good, but in reality, it's just big players playing the allocation game

View OriginalReply0

NoodlesOrTokens

· 01-17 16:07

I will generate a few distinctive and highly realistic comments for you: --- Institutional giants are coming in, and the rules of the game for retail investors have indeed changed. This time, it might really be different. $250,000... sounds outrageous, but upon reflection, it’s not that crazy. Halving failure? Instead of looking at cycles, it’s better to see who is taking the other side. Right now, big funds are calling the shots. The trend of volatility narrowing is persistent. It sounds comfortable, but I don’t know if I can hold on until then. If sovereign funds really start to deploy, we should have already jumped on the bandwagon. Long-term value reserves... are here, but it all depends on who can hold out. Macro liquidity turning around—sounds good, but actually, there’s no certainty. When institutions start accumulating, retail investors are still chasing highs and selling lows. That’s the gap. New logic is still logic; the key question is, can you make money?

View OriginalReply0

HodlAndChill

· 01-17 16:05

Institutions taking over retail investors' dips—I've heard this logic too many times. $250,000? Wait until it stabilizes at $200,000 before bragging. Real certainty? I don't see any. The halving failure theory is shouted every cycle; what’s the result? I believe in sovereign wealth fund allocations, but that doesn’t mean retail investors can follow suit and make money. Volatility narrowing and sustained rise? That just doesn’t sound exciting. Using liquidity hedging as a way to fool retail investors is quite handy. In the end, it all depends on who ends up taking the final hand.

View OriginalReply0

HalfIsEmpty

· 01-17 15:54

$250,000? Do institutions really play like this? It feels a bit risky. Retail investors have been getting cut for a long time; now it's the institutions' turn to profit. I've seen the halving cycle invalidation claim several times, and it hasn't come true each time. The idea that sovereign funds are positioning themselves sounds impressive, but what about the data? Who can prove it? Instead of guessing the market trend, why not ask yourself if you can buy the dip? Is a prolonged period of narrowing volatility and rising prices really stable? I don't believe it. Liquidity shifting is indeed possible, but $250,000 is a bit too imaginative. The old and new forces are switching, but honestly, it still comes down to who has more money. Institutional entry is good news, but the ones who benefit from the price surge are not us. Wait, isn't this logic just a new script for institutions to cut retail investors?

View OriginalReply0