Author: Alex Thorn, Galaxy

Compiled by: Jia Huan, ChainCatcher

Over Bitcoin’s 17-year history, its price has always moved in long-term cycles of boom and bust. Roughly every four years, it climbs to a euphoric peak, endures a painful decline to a trough, and then begins to recover again.

This rhythm has historically been anchored by the quadrennial halving, which directly cuts the regular new supply in half. Although the influence of successive halvings is waning and the market is awash with various "supercycle" predictions, empirical data once again shows that the four-year cycle pattern remains fully intact.

This report examines these fluctuations and a pattern that has emerged in Bitcoin’s modern history: each cycle’s amplitude is shallower than the last.

The October 2025 peak was the calmest top in Bitcoin’s history, and the subsequent decline has been unusually mild. Given such a restrained high, should we expect the eventual cycle bottom to also be exceptionally shallow? If so, roughly where might that bottom lie?

This report assumes the bottom of the current drawdown has not yet arrived and provides data to support this hypothesis. The data also suggests that the calmer October 2025 top may lead to a higher cycle bottom.

Historical analogies indicate a base-case bottom for the current drawdown between $40,000 and $46,000, occurring roughly between now and Q4 2026. (The base case is for illustrative purposes only. Actual results may differ materially.)

Crucially, this report relies entirely on market data, on-chain data, and time-cycle analysis. Our projected cycle bottom range does not utilize or depend on assessments of the likelihood, timing, or impact of external events (such as regulatory, market, or geopolitical developments).

Is Bitcoin’s “Four-Year Cycle” Still Valid?

Each Bitcoin cycle has traversed from a prior low, through the halving, up to a peak, and back down to the next low. Here are the four cycles, including the current one:

The bottom of the current cycle has not yet formed. Based on the report date of June 9, 2026, its drawdown magnitude and elapsed time are "to date" figures.

Note the two patterns this report relies on: first, the peak-to-trough decline in each cycle is shrinking (from 85% to 84%, then to 77%); second, historically, a bottom has appeared roughly 12 to 13 months after each top. The current cycle is only eight months past its most recent peak.

When compared on an indexed basis, the October 2025 top appears remarkably restrained relative to previous cycle tops. Precisely because of this, the average price the market paid for its coins—the realized price, or "cost basis"—is unusually close to the all-time high, reaching 43.7% of the prior ATH.

In contrast, this ratio was typically only one-third or even lower in past cycles.

This is a crucial data point: if a sell-off of the same magnitude that ended past bear markets were to occur, it would stabilize at a much higher dollar level this time. Comparing cycle timing, amplitude, and on-chain indicators, the current drawdown may bottom within the following range:

The price levels above and the analysis in the report both point to our view: the bottom of this cycle has not yet been found. Very few historical cycle bottom indicators have been triggered; from a timing perspective, the current decline is still relatively short compared to historical drawdowns; and once genuine panic sets in, the cost basis itself will also decline.

Our core thesis is: empirically, the four-year cycle remains valid, but its amplitude has contracted. A calmer top raises the floor but does not eliminate it.

How to Precisely Identify Cycle Tops and Bottoms with Data?

Capturing a top or bottom precisely as it forms is nearly impossible, or at least extremely difficult; yet in hindsight, everything always seems obvious. Our approach, therefore, is to list the conditions that have appeared at past tops and bottoms and see how many are concurrently manifesting today.

To build a set of indicators for evaluating past tops and bottoms, we examined five categories of evidence: valuation (relative to holders’ cost basis, is the current price high or low?), profit-taking (are holders selling into strength or capitulating in weakness?), miners (are the participants producing Bitcoin flush with cash or under pressure?), trend (how far does price deviate from long-term averages?), and sentiment (greed or fear?).

Applying this five-dimensional lens to both ends of the current cycle yields a clear picture: Bitcoin’s volatility amplitude is shrinking. Each top is less euphoric than the last, and the subsequent crashes are increasingly shallow.

If this amplitude "contraction" is real and holds true at both ends, it can provide valuable information for the expected cycle low in the current drawdown. We can thus estimate a range for where Bitcoin might bottom during this drawdown.

This analysis requires us to first identify indicators and establish benchmarks for recognizing cycle tops and bottoms. We apply the same scoring method to both ends: comparing against the levels reached at every past top and every past bottom.

Reviewing the Cycle Top

The top was real, but it was also the calmest on record. At the October high, only two of the 11 classic warning signals reached the mildest prior top levels, and even then, only barely.

The clearest valuation metric, the Market Value to Realized Value ratio (MVRV, which measures how high the price is relative to the average price holders paid), peaked at just 2.29, compared to MVRV readings between 2.93 and 5.91 at the previous three tops.

The entire "greed" indicator cluster recorded its lowest cycle top readings on record, while the Pi Cycle Top indicator (a timing signal that had predicted the past three tops within days) did not flash at all, a first in Bitcoin’s history.

In terms of timing, however, it was textbook: the top appeared 1,062 days after the prior low, precisely coinciding with the timing of the 2017 and 2021 peaks.

The twist is that the real euphoria had occurred about 18 months earlier, around the launch of spot Bitcoin ETFs in the U.S., after which prices continued to climb even as enthusiasm waned. In hindsight, this looked more like institutional buying than the retail frenzy that triggers a blow-off top.

The chart below is the full top indicator scorecard for the current cycle (anchored to the October 2025 all-time high).

Of the 11 magnitude signals: two were confirmed, two were only partially confirmed (reaching at least 85% of the threshold), and seven did not flash. The two that were confirmed (RSI and SOPR) only barely crossed their weakest thresholds set in 2021, and they peaked in 2023 and 2024 respectively, not at the October 2025 price high.

Crucially, even though the cycle clock arrived on schedule, the Pi Cycle Top signal still did not flash (since time is a calendar fact, not a measure of top euphoria, these two indicators are treated separately).

"Past Top Hallmarks" are the ranges from the 2013, 2017, and 2021 cycle tops; the threshold is taken from the least euphoric of the three (the 2021 peak), i.e., the easiest top threshold to cross. "Cycle Peak" is the most extreme reading for each indicator in the current cycle and the month it occurred. Reserve Risk and Pi Cycle Ratio use our internal measurement scales.

Projecting the Cycle Bottom

During this drawdown, only 4 of the 13 bottom signals have been triggered, and 3 of those are among the weaker indicators: fear sentiment, trend indicators touching bottom zones, and the first dip below the 200-week moving average.

The fourth signal reversed in early June and is the first warning from the miner side: a Hash Ribbons recovery cross. This occurs when the 30-day average hashrate climbs back above the 60-day average after a period of capitulation, a signal that has historically often presaged a bottom.

The strongest signals that have marked every true bottom (price falling below the cost basis, holders collectively underwater, persistent loss-taking, deep panic washouts) have not yet appeared. The current -51% decline is still far milder than the -77% to -85% lows that ended past cycles, and shallower than the -53% mid-2021 drop.

But the rhythm has changed. Measured at the same point in the cycle (about eight months, or 242 days, after the peak), the recent slide has pushed the current drawdown slightly below the level of the 2013-2015 cycle at the same stage (which was experiencing a relief rally at -48%).

It is therefore no longer the shallowest drawdown path on the chart (which it had been for most of this drawdown). The 2017-2018 and 2021-2022 cycles were much deeper at this stage (both near -68%). Extrapolating from the cycle clock, the window for a bear market low likely won’t open until late 2026.

Each curve tracks a cycle’s drawdown from its peak, aligned with Day 0. Around Day 242 (dashed line), the current cycle (orange, -51%) has slightly dipped below the 2013-2015 cycle’s level (-48%), meaning it is no longer the shallowest drawdown cycle (which it had been for most of the period prior).

The other two past cycles were both near -68% at this stage. All cycles are currently well above current prices (the green band marks the bottoming zone of past bear markets).

The chart below is the full bottom indicator scorecard for the current drawdown, using metrics that have previously signaled cycle bottoms.

Of the 13 target indicators, 4 have been triggered, 2 are approaching, and 7 have not yet been triggered.

To illustrate the indicative meaning of this bottom indicator set, the table below lists when they were triggered at previous cycle bottoms and compares them to today.

Lining up these same 13 signals against the past three cycles, the pattern is clear: at every past bear market low, these 13 indicators ultimately entered bottoming territory, with the only difference being timing—some flashed early, some lagged.

Today, only 4 have been triggered, and the sole miner-side indicator among them (Hash Ribbons) was triggered only recently. (One notable difference is that this Hash Ribbons reversal appears to have preceded the bottom, rather than lagging it as in the past. This may stem from the externality impact of Bitcoin miners pivoting toward AI, a phenomenon not present in prior cycles.)

Numbers in past cycle cells indicate the number of days each indicator’s extreme value closest to the bottom led (-) or lagged (+) that cycle’s price low, within a 180-day window. Hash Ribbons refers to the recovery cross; Cycle Clock refers to the 12th month after the top.

Each indicator was triggered at all three past bottoms; the signal significance lies in whether they led or lagged. The current cycle low appears not yet to have arrived, so the current column only shows whether each checkbox has been ticked since the October 2025 price high.

Lower highs, higher lows

Before drawing any conclusions, let’s lay out one fact on which the rest of this report rests: Bitcoin’s amplitude has narrowed at both extremes.

The heat at the top has cooled each cycle (MVRV readings of 5.91, 4.72, 2.93, 2.29), while the subsequent bottom has risen each cycle, with MVRV climbing from 0.56 in 2015 to 0.69 in 2018 and 0.75 in 2022.

In other words, the distance between the most overvalued and most undervalued points in each cycle is shrinking. The price during crashes tells the same story: drawdowns of −85%, −84%, −77%, and so far only −51% this time.

The ratio of price to cost basis (MVRV) at each top (red) and subsequent bottom (blue) is converging toward “fair value” (1.0) from both directions. The data suggests the current cycle has likely not yet bottomed (the hollow diamond marks the deepest reading so far). This describes the cycle pattern; it does not guarantee where this cycle will bottom.

Cooling tops and rising bottoms describe three completed cycles, not a law of nature. By itself, it does not prove the next low will necessarily be shallow.

But it allows us to ask a precise question and give a precise answer: if a bottom behaves like past bottoms, to what extent is the dollar drawdown determined by the degree of frenzy at the top?

A rising price floor

MVRV is simply today’s price divided by the on-chain cost basis. Working backwards, the cost basis equals the all-time high divided by the MVRV at the top. So a lower top MVRV means the cost basis sits closer to the peak.

Because the October top was the calmest on record (MVRV of 2.29), the cost basis ended up at 43.7% of the all-time high (compared with 34.2%, 21.2%, and 16.9% at the 2021, 2017, and 2013 tops). A calm top does not depress the floor; all else equal, it actually pulls the cost basis closer to the peak, thereby raising the floor.

The cost basis as a share of each cycle’s all-time high has climbed every cycle, reaching 44% by 2025, precisely because each top has been milder. The annotations on each bar show what dollar drawdown a typical traditional bottom formation would imply for that cycle.

Now hold the bottom’s behavior constant (assume each cycle bottoms at the same MVRV), and you can see that the dollar drawdown shrinks each cycle purely because the cost basis starts from a higher level. The table below illustrates this without containing any forecast:

Each cell shows the drawdown if the cycle bottoms at the MVRV in that column, calculated using that cycle’s specific cost-basis-to-peak ratio.

Within the same row, the bottom’s behavior is identical; only the calmness of the top changes. A typical traditional bottom (MVRV of 0.70) meant an −88% drawdown in 2013, but only −69% in this cycle. This merely isolates the effect of the top; it is arithmetic, not an assertion that a calm top inevitably produces a higher bottom.

Where is the bottom this time?

The bottom is not located by a round percentage but relative to two key anchors: the cost basis and the 200-week moving average (200w MA). The latter has served as long-term price support throughout Bitcoin’s entire life.

Measured against these two anchors, the lows of the past three bear markets all fell clearly below both: on average about −33% below the cost basis (deepest at −44% in 2015) and about −14% below the four-year moving average.

Two points are worth noting.

First, the gap below the cost basis has shrunk each cycle (−44%, −31%, −25%), mirroring the contraction on the top side.

Second, today’s price has not even touched that zone. Even after a 51% decline, Bitcoin’s price is still 14% above the cost basis (it has never broken below the cost basis this cycle) and only 1.5% below the four-year moving average. By the yardsticks that located past bottoms, this cycle’s bottom has not yet arrived.

The distance by which each past bear-market low fell below the cost basis (blue) and the four-year moving average (purple). Past lows were well below both; today’s price remains above the cost basis and only slightly below the 200-week moving average, while the gap below the cost basis has shrunk each cycle.

The anchors and the arithmetic point to the same conclusion. Translating past gaps onto today’s anchors, they point to the same zone: −25% to −44% below the cost basis, roughly equivalent to $30,000–$40,000; the four-year moving average gap spans roughly $41,000–$62,000.

This suggests the true bottom is likely below the current price, but far above the old “75% to 85% down” levels.

Translating the arithmetic into prices, based on the current $53,000 cost basis, yields not a single number but a set of scenarios; let’s start with the central one.

Our base case assumes the bottom simply continues the cycle-by-cycle trend of converging toward fair value (MVRV of 0.75 to 0.86), landing around $40,000–$46,000. If a harsher, deeper washout similar to 2018 or 2022 occurs (MVRV of 0.56 to 0.70), prices would fall to $30,000–$37,000.

In a shallower outcome where steady buying absorbs the decline near the cost basis (MVRV of 0.95 to 1.01), prices would be around $51,000–$54,000; merely touching the rising four-year moving average ($62,000) would be a drawdown of only about −51%. (For illustrative purposes only. Actual results may differ materially.)

Several scenarios drawn in price terms. The cost basis and the rising four-year moving average (along which bottoms have historically traced) are far above the old “75% to 85% down” zone (grey, deprecated).

The colored bands translate past bottom formations into today’s dollar levels. These levels assume “the bottom has already formed”; they are not a prediction that a bottom is imminent. For illustrative purposes only; actual results may differ materially.

The real takeaway is how this upends old rules of thumb. A −77% to −85% drawdown — an accurate yardstick for past cycles — would place this cycle’s bottom at $19,000–$29,000.

But that rule effectively double-counts the effect of a calm top: the extreme 75%–85% drawdowns of the past were built on extremely euphoric peaks; this cycle’s peak was already mild and close to the cost basis. Forcing a deep-drawdown ratio designed for extreme euphoria onto this mild peak naturally produces a severely distorted bottom forecast.

In this whole picture, the cost basis is like the tide moving underneath, and it most clearly shows that the “floor” is mobile.

Over the past year, as this cycle’s high-price buyers steadily raised the average, the cost basis climbed from about $47,000 to a peak near $56,000 by the end of 2025 (a 20% increase). That climb is the deepest reason the current bottom sits far above the old rule.

But as some 2024–2025 coins changed hands at a loss during the decline, the realized price subsequently pulled back about 5%, to around $53,000.

Heading into late 2026, the realized price (i.e., the cost basis) becomes the key variable determining the bottom: a calm, orderly decline could allow it to stabilize, anchoring the base case around $45,000; genuine panic would drive it further down, dragging the overall forecast lower.

Why is the bottom also mobile?

The cost basis is reflexive. It looks like a floor, but it is built from the prices at which coins last traded. In a real sell-off, coins changing hands at a loss pull that average down, so this “floor” does not support the price but instead follows it lower.

This is the biggest limitation on the argument for a rising floor. The buffer is thin: today’s price is only about 14% above the cost basis (MVRV of 1.14), and this cycle has never broken below it.

If a sell-off pulls the cost basis down by 10%, 20%, or 30%, a typical bottom formation could slide from around $40,000 to roughly $36,000, $32,000, or $28,000, returning to the normal historical range.

Keeping the bottom formation constant while letting the cost basis fall during a sell-off. The implied bottom price slides from around $40,000 back toward $28,000, re-entering the normal historical range (amber). A calm top raises the floor; genuine panic eats back some of those gains.

Steady, price-insensitive buying from spot ETFs and corporate treasuries — absent in past cycles — tends to prop up a higher floor. But it can amplify a decline just as easily as it can cushion one.

The nature of these funding sources means Digital Asset Treasury companies (DATs) and corporate treasuries tend to buy into strength rather than catch falling knives; moreover, ETF flows have recently turned net negative in 2026. In a genuine deep sell-off, fund redemptions could force selling rather than absorbing it.

The 2022 cycle witnessed the largest forced-selling washout in crypto history, yet it only fell −77%. So “leverage is lower this time” is not necessarily reliable. (These are supporting arguments, not the core pillars of the thesis.)

A higher floor, and the risk of it being eroded in a panic, are two sides of the same mechanism: this cycle’s cost basis starts higher, but it will also fall if genuine market capitulation arrives. That is precisely why we emphasize a range rather than a single number.

The drawdown path the data suggests

Our analysis clearly points to how deep the drawdown will go and how long it will take.

A milder top has lifted the cost basis to 43.7% of the all-time high, so for any given bottom formation, the dollar drawdown is mechanically milder than in any past cycle.

We believe the rule of thumb that “Bitcoin historically falls 75%–85%, so this cycle will bottom at $19,000–$29,000” is obsolete as a literal price floor.

Even a deep washout similar to the past now corresponds to a much higher number. Therefore, even our harsher washout scenario sits above that zone, while our base case lands in the mid-$40,000s.

Judging by indicators and timing data from past cycles, the bottom has likely not yet appeared. Only 4 of 13 bottom indicators have lit up, and the current drawdown is only about 8 months old, whereas the historical pattern is 12–13 months to a bottom (and the cost basis itself will decline further).

There are several signals of a genuine deep washout: price breaking below the cost basis, aggregate holder losses, persistent forced selling, an effective break below the four-year moving average, and a bear-market-level deep drawdown. If these signals begin to reverse at levels far above the old zone, it would confirm that the amplitude contraction at both ends of the cycle is real.

Conversely, if a full-blown capitulation sell-off arrives on schedule, then the calm top merely delayed the pain rather than lessening it. In either case, the arithmetic of the cost basis shows that the starting line for making this judgment is far higher than the old four-year cycle rule assumed.

This is a descriptive study that explains the arithmetic logic of how a calm cycle top shapes a cycle bottom. It is not necessarily a prediction of price direction or price targets. The price levels we set are derived by using historical data to analogize the current drawdown relative to today's cost basis (which itself changes over time).

Appendix A: Chart Library

We have compiled a large collection of auxiliary charts organized by theme. The first group frames the cycle; the second group walks through the complete bottom checklist item by item. In each indicator chart, the shaded band represents the range that indicator reached at the lows of 2015, 2018, and 2022, and the orange marker shows the latest reading.

Cycle Illustrations

Price and its cycle tops. Bitcoin's full price history on a logarithmic scale, marking the past three cycle tops (red) and the October 2025 high (orange).

Price and its cycle bottoms. The same history, marking reference lows: the bear market bottoms of 2015, 2018, and 2022 (red), along with the COVID crash and the mid-2021 drawdown (gray).

Cycle clock. How many days after the prior low (circles) and halving (squares) each top arrived. The October 2025 top landed precisely within the historical window.

Euphoria arrived early. The cycle's valuation peak occurred in early 2024, around the spot ETF launch; on-chain enthusiasm then faded, yet price rose another ~70% before topping in October 2025.

The signal that never triggered. The Pi Cycle Top accurately called the 2013, 2017, and 2021 peaks (stars) within days. In this cycle, the trigger condition was never met (a first for any cycle top).

Bottom Indicator Breakdown

MVRV. The ratio of price relative to the average holder cost basis. Past bottoms pushed it far below 1.0; this cycle's low so far stopped at 1.14.

NUPL. The share of market cap sitting in unrealized profit. Past bottoms pushed it below zero (aggregate loss); it remains positive today.

MVRV Z-Score. A standardized version of MVRV. Past bottoms recorded deeply negative values; this cycle it is still positive.

Mayer Multiple. Price divided by the 200-day moving average. It has already descended into the bottom zone, making it the most bottom-like of all the trend signals.

Price vs. four-year moving average. The 200-week moving average is Bitcoin's most enduring support. Past bottoms touched or breached it; price has now fallen below it for the first time this cycle.

SOPR. The average profit or loss of coins moved on a given day. Past bottoms kept it below 1.0 for months (capitulation selling); this cycle it has only briefly dipped below.

Net Realized Profit/Loss. The amount of profit (+) or loss (−) locked in each day, scaled by market size. The extreme loss-taking spike that marks bottoms has not yet appeared.

Puell Multiple. A miner revenue stress indicator. Past miner capitulation bottoms read 0.30 to 0.41; this cycle's low (~0.44) is close but did not touch.

Hash Ribbons. Hash rate momentum. Below 1.0 signals miners are capitulating; it has been persistently below that threshold in 2026.

Fear & Greed Index. Our proprietary 0–100 sentiment gauge has sunk deeper into fear during this decline than the average of past bottoms. This is the only indicator that has already triggered decisively.

Appendix B: Glossary

Bitcoin Cycle. Bitcoin's roughly four-year rhythm of multi-year climbs to new all-time highs, sharp declines to lows, and prolonged recoveries. Each cycle typically revolves around the halving.

Halving. Roughly every four years, the rate at which new bitcoin is produced is cut in half. It is a fixed protocol feature that has historically served as an anchor point for each cycle.

All-Time High (ATH). Bitcoin's highest daily closing price ever. This cycle's ATH is $124,824 on October 6, 2025.

Drawdown. The percentage decline in price from a peak. A −50% drawdown means price has fallen by half from its ATH.

Cost Basis, also known as Realized Price. An estimate of the average price the market paid for its bitcoin. Technically, it sums every bitcoin at the price of its last on-chain transfer and divides by the number of bitcoins. It is the single most critical anchor in this report, and we also refer to it as the network's cost basis.

Market Cap. The total dollar value of all bitcoin at the current price (price × number of bitcoins in circulation).

Realized Cap. The total value of all bitcoin calculated at the price each coin last moved, rather than the current price. Realized Price is Realized Cap divided by the number of bitcoins.

MVRV Ratio. Market Cap divided by Realized Cap, which also equals the day's price divided by the network's cost basis. Above 1.0, the average coin is in profit; below 1.0, the average coin is in loss. It is the central thread running through this report.

MVRV Z-Score. A standardized version of the difference between Market Cap and Realized Cap, making extreme highs and lows comparable across Bitcoin's vastly different price eras.

NUPL (Net Unrealized Profit/Loss). The share of total market cap that is unrealized profit. High positive values mark greed near tops; below zero (aggregate paper loss) often accompanies the despair selling near bottoms.

SOPR (Spent Output Profit Ratio). The average profit or loss of coins moved on a given day. Above 1.0, coins are being sold in profit; sustained below 1.0 signals holders are selling at a loss (a bottoming signal).

Mayer Multiple. Price divided by the 200-day moving average. A simple gauge of how far price has deviated above or below its medium-term trend.

200-Day / 200-Week Moving Average. The average closing price over the past 200 days (medium-term trend) or 200 weeks (roughly four years, Bitcoin's most enduring long-term support line).

Puell Multiple. The dollar value of newly mined bitcoin divided by its one-year average, used to gauge miner revenue stress (low) or exuberance (high). The indicator is named after ARK Invest analyst David Puell.

Reserve Risk. Measures long-term holder confidence relative to price. It is presented as a ratio and used only in relative terms in this report.

Pi Cycle Top. A timing indicator that triggers when the 111-day moving average crosses above twice the 350-day moving average. It accurately called the 2013, 2017, and 2021 tops within days; it never triggered this cycle.

Hash Ribbons. Compares the 30-day and 60-day average hash rate. When the shorter average falls below the longer one, the highest-cost miners begin shutting down (capitulation); the recovery cross has historically preceded bottoms.

Fear & Greed Index. A 0–100 sentiment gauge built from on-chain, derivatives, and flow data. Low readings indicate extreme fear (near bottoms), high readings indicate extreme greed (near tops).

RSI (Relative Strength Index). A momentum oscillator between 0 and 100; high readings suggest overbought conditions, typically near tops.

Cycle Clock. The number of days elapsed from the cycle-starting low, or from the halving, to a top or bottom. Bitcoin's past three tops all arrived roughly 1,060 days after the prior low; bottoms appeared roughly 12–13 months after the top.

Reflexivity. This concept, popularized by George Soros in his 1987 book *The Alchemy of Finance*, refers to the idea that the very standards used as measuring sticks are themselves influenced by price fluctuations. Here, the cost basis appears to be a bottom line, but in a real sell-off, positions changing hands at a loss will cause it to decline accordingly. The floor is a moving target, not a fixed red line.