I've been watching Bitcoin's price movements lately and realized that this year's start has been absolutely disastrous. The first 50 trading days have seen a total decline of 23%, marking the worst start to a year on record—down 10% in January and another 15% in February. Even more concerning is the possibility of setting a historical record—the first time in Bitcoin's history that January and February have both experienced consecutive declines.

During the 2018 crypto winter, January fell 29% but February was flat; in the 2022 bear market, January dropped 18% but February rebounded 12%. At least one month was positive in those cases. Now, even that baseline isn't holding.

On-chain data paints an even scarier picture. On February 5th, Bitcoin experienced a single-day realized loss of up to $3.2 billion. The short-term holder MVRV ratio dropped to 0.87, meaning they are on average losing 13%. About 35.66% of circulating supply is in loss, with an average loss of 18%. Currently, roughly half of all holders are in the red, a situation that has only occurred at bottoms in 2015, 2019, and 2022.

But this doesn't mean we've bottomed out. On-chain analysts estimate the bottom could be between $60,000 (optimistic scenario) and $52,000 (pessimistic scenario).

I've also noticed another issue—the asset management size of the US spot Bitcoin ETF has seen a net outflow of about $7 billion from November 2025 to January 2026, the longest continuous outflow period since the ETF's launch. Some studies suggest that between 55% and 75% of the holders of the BlackRock iBit are market makers and arbitrage funds, not long-term believers in Bitcoin. In other words, the "institutional demand" driven by ETFs may not be as solid as the surface numbers suggest. This shift in sentiment itself is a signal.

Why has the four-year cycle failed? That's the most interesting part. The first year after a halving is usually the strongest for Bitcoin—2013 surged 5507%, 2017 rose 1331%, and 2021 increased 60%. But 2025 actually declined 6.33%, marking the first halving year to end in a loss. As the second year after halving, 2026, traditionally a bear market year, is now exceeding expectations and confirming that label.

Some say the four-year cycle is breaking because of optimism—diminishing halving effects, ETF-driven institutional demand, and eventual rate cuts. But the counterargument is straightforward: if halving effects have already diminished to the point where they can't drive cyclical rallies, then Bitcoin's price movement depends entirely on macroeconomic conditions and liquidity. Currently, the Federal Reserve maintains high interest rates, tariffs are fueling inflation, and tech stocks are weak—liquidity is tightening.

Some analysts have already cut their year-end 2026 target from $150,000 to $100,000, warning that Bitcoin could first fall to $50,000. More pessimistic forecasts even suggest that if the parabolic structure breaks, the price could dip as low as $25,000, with the true bottom possibly not until October 2026.

The deepest contradiction lies here: Bitcoin has never been more "institutionalized"—with spot ETFs, strategic reserves, friendly regulation, and backing from mainstream financial institutions. Yet, its price performance is the worst start in history. This isn't a failure of institutionalization; rather, institutionalization has changed Bitcoin's essence. As Bitcoin becomes a macro asset, it must bear the gravitational pull of the macro environment. The Federal Reserve's interest rate decisions, global trade policies, and tech earnings seasons—variables that were once "unrelated" to Bitcoin—are now its core pricing factors.

The logic of the four-year cycle is built on the premise that halving causes supply shocks that drive prices higher. But as Bitcoin's market cap reaches the trillion-dollar level, the difference between reducing block rewards from 6.25 to 3.125 coins per block becomes negligible relative to the overall market size. The price-driving force is no longer the mathematical reward from mining but the mathematics of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet. Under the dual pressures of stablecoin collapse risks and liquidity tightening, this shift becomes even more apparent. Bitcoin now functions more like a macro asset than a pure cryptocurrency.