Main Points :
- Arthur Hayes argues the classical 4-year Bitcoin halving cycle is dead, replaced by macro liquidity dynamics.
- What really ends crypto bull runs is monetary tightening, not time.
- Today’s cycle is shaped by U.S. and Chinese money supply policy, not protocol mechanics.
- Institutional adoption and ETF inflows are reinforcing the shift to a new structural regime.
- Challenges, risks, and implications for new crypto projects and real-world blockchain use cases.
Introduction
In a provocative essay titled “Long Live the King!”, BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes has declared that the traditional four-year Bitcoin cycle — based on block reward halving — is no longer a valid framework to analyze price behavior. Instead, Hayes argues, the real driver behind crypto cycles is the global supply of money, particularly the liquidity policies in the U.S. (dollars) and China (yuan). Market participants who cling to the old timing models risk misreading the next phase. In this article, I will first summarize Hayes’s argument (alongside the Japanese translation), then bring in more recent developments and counterarguments, and finally assess what this means for investors and blockchain practitioners seeking new opportunities.
A. Hayes’s Argument: “The 4-Year Cycle Is Dead”
1. Why the classic cycle worked — and why it fails now
Hayes begins by observing that many traders, on the 4-year anniversary of the latest cycle, are trying to force past patterns onto the present. But while the four-year rhythm appeared effective historically, Hayes claims it was never a deterministic law. Instead, historic bull and bear phases in Bitcoin corresponded to phases of monetary expansion or contraction.
He argues that past blowoffs or crashes were triggered not by the passage of time, but by tightening monetary conditions (i.e. liquidity withdrawal). In his view, a halving does not automatically lead to a price cycle — in fact, only when central banks or governments withdraw liquidity does the cycle break.
Thus, in his view, the “4-year cycle” is more of a retrospective narrative than a causal law.
2. The new regime: Money supply, not mechanics
Hayes posits that the key variables now are the price and quantity of money—especially in USD and CNY. He revisits four historical eras of Bitcoin:
- Genesis cycle (2009–2013): The bull run was powered by U.S. quantitative easing (QE) after the global financial crisis, paired with Chinese credit expansion. The bear phase began when both central banks slowed money growth.
- ICO cycle (2013–2017): This phase, according to Hayes, was driven more by Chinese credit and yuan devaluation than by U.S. liquidity. When China’s credit impulse cooled and U.S. rates tightened, the rally collapsed.
- COVID / stimulus cycle (2017–2021): In this cycle, U.S. liquidity (stimulus, low rates, QE) did the heavy lifting while China was more reserved. The cycle ended when the U.S. Fed began tightening around 2021.
- Current cycle (post-2024 halving): According to Hayes, this cycle is structurally different. He argues that the U.S. Treasury has injected $2.5 trillion from reverse repo operations back into markets via Treasury issuance, while the Biden/Trump policy is oriented toward looser money, and bank deregulatory moves are underway.
He also notes that the Fed has resumed cutting rates even though inflation is still above target, and futures markets now price in a ~94% chance of a rate cut in October and ~80% in December.
In short: while past cycles ended when central banks tightened, Hayes believes that tightening will not occur imminently — thus the terminal event of the cycle may be delayed, rendering timing models obsolete.
3. China’s evolving role
Hayes concedes that in this cycle, China’s role may differ from past ones. He argues that Chinese policymakers are shifting from a deflationary stance toward at least a neutral or mild easing stance, meaning China is unlikely to actively kill the rally. In other words, the “brake” that formerly existed (i.e. China’s contraction) may not manifest in this cycle.
Thus, the new regime is one in which U.S. liquidity policy is likely to dominate upward momentum, with less countervailing force from China.
4. The rhetorical flourish
Hayes’s closing line is memorable:
“Listen to our monetary masters in Washington and Beijing. They clearly state that money shall be cheaper and more plentiful. Therefore, Bitcoin continues to rise in anticipation of this highly probable future. The king is dead, long live the king!”
This encapsulates his shift from deterministic timing to a belief in policy regimes as the driver of price.
B. Recent Developments, Market Signals, and Contrarian Views
1. Bitcoin’s all-time highs and ETF inflows
Recent data backs some of Hayes’s intuition: Bitcoin recently reached new all-time highs above $125,000, with strong support from global cryptocurrency ETF inflows. Reuters reports that in the week ending October 4, 2025, global crypto ETFs saw record inflows of $5.95 billion, led by the U.S. with $5 billion.
Institutional demand is thus tangible, and capital is actively flowing into crypto instruments. This dynamic is consistent with the thesis that crypto is becoming an integrated part of macro portfolio construction, not just a retail speculation vehicle.
2. Adoption, structural regime shift, and K33’s view
K33 Research, a notable crypto analysis firm, has also declared that the four-year cycle is outdated, and that we’ve entered a new structural regime propelled by institutional adoption, ETF integration, and macro policy shifts.
In K33’s view, the conditions are different: crypto is no longer niche or fringe, but now participating in mainstream capital flows. That reinforces Hayes’s broader argument about regime change.
3. Contrarian voices and risks
Not everyone is convinced. On-chain analytics firm Glassnode continues to find echoes of cyclical behavior in Bitcoin price dynamics, arguing that in a cycle perspective Bitcoin’s movements still reminisce past patterns. Gemini’s Asia-Pacific head, Thaddeus Ahmed, has suggested that cycles might persist in some form, even if altered.
Other critiques point to overconfidence in policy permanence: what if inflation surprises, or geopolitical shocks force central banks to tighten? The new era may be more fragile than it appears.
Further, some argue that the halving-induced supply scarcity still matters: while liquidity is necessary to fuel demand, supply-side shocks remain relevant in a constrained issuance regime.
4. Academic insights & pattern complexity
Recent academic research also suggests crypto markets’ behavior is increasingly nonlinear and complex. For example, a study in Non-Linear and Meta-Stable Dynamics in Financial Markets finds that markets may behave like a “double-well potential” at times, particularly under stress—implying that simple linear or cyclic models are inadequate.
Another interesting line emerges from a recent framework analyzing decentralization: while many projects have grown more decentralized over time, recent trends show a drift toward centralization in consensus layers, developer influence, or NFT platforms. This concentration might influence which blockchain projects can thrive under new macro regimes.
C. Implications for Crypto Investors and Blockchain Practitioners
1. Shift from timing to regime bets
If Hayes is correct, the game is less about predicting the exact peak and more about recognizing policy regimes—when liquidity is ample, risk assets (including crypto) are favored; when policy tightens, they suffer. Investors need to monitor central bank signals, fiscal stimulus, debt issuance, and credit impulses in major economies.
Thus, one should treat macro indicators as core to crypto strategy, not just technicals or cycle countdowns.
2. Better tail strategy design
In this liquidity-driven world, tail risk management becomes vital. For example, if unexpectedly inflation surges or a policy U-turn occurs, crypto could suffer. Hedging with options, diversifying into defensive assets, or maintaining some cash liquidity may become more important than ever.
3. New crypto projects must align with macro flows
For builders and founders, the environment of abundant capital means a fertile ground—but only if your project can capture liquidity efficiently. Projects tied to real use cases, yield, cross-chain interoperability, and institutional integration may be more robust than hype-based plays.
Projects with stablecoins, tokenized real assets, DeFi primitives, on-chain data infrastructure, or modular architecture may attract capital in this regime.
4. Stress test decentralization and governance structures
Because networks may come under greater scrutiny in this regime (e.g. regulatory risk, centralization pressure), projects should design governance and decentralization robustly. Recent academic work warns that decentralization can erode, especially in consensus or development domains.
Projects that remain open, permissionless, and resilient to concentration risk may have an edge.
Conclusion
Arthur Hayes’s provocative thesis—that the canonical four-year Bitcoin cycle is now obsolete and that macro liquidity policy is the decisive engine—is more than just contrarian rhetoric. It aligns with recent capital flows, institutional adoption, and a broader shift in how crypto is treated in global finance. Yet it is not without risks or detractors.
For people seeking new crypto assets or next-generation revenue streams, the lesson is clear: invest not only in protocols but in macro-aware frameworks. Keep close watch on central bank policies, capital flows, and balance sheet expansion. Favor projects with real yield, resilience, and institutional-grade architecture. In an era where the king is dead, those adapting to the new regime may yet inherit the throne.
