Connect with us

Crypto World

Bitcoin’s Four-Year Cycle May Be Ending, Fidelity Research Suggests

Published

on

Bitcoin’s Four-Year Cycle May Be Ending, Fidelity Research Suggests

TLDR:

  • Fidelity data shows Bitcoin volatility hitting record lows even months after the 2025 price peak near $126,000.
  • Public companies and ETFs now hold nearly 12% of Bitcoin supply, signaling major institutional accumulation.
  • Bitcoin’s MVRV ratio has stayed near 2x realized value this cycle, far below peaks seen in past bull markets.
  • Fidelity’s profit-to-volatility ratio has remained above 0.015 since 2023, marking the longest stability period.

Bitcoin’s market behavior may be entering a new phase, according to recent research from Fidelity Digital Assets. 

The firm argues that long-standing boom-and-bust cycles could weaken as institutional demand reshapes the market. Data shows volatility hitting record lows even months after Bitcoin reached new price highs. 

The question now is whether the classic four-year Bitcoin cycle still defines the crypto market.

Bitcoin Volatility Trends Challenge the Classic Four-Year Cycle

Bitcoin reached a market capitalization near $2.5 trillion during its October 2025 peak. Prices climbed above $126,000 during that rally.

However, volatility moved in the opposite direction. One-year realized volatility recorded 17 new all-time lows in January 2026.

Source: Fidelity Digital Assets

According to Fidelity Digital Assets research, this pattern differs sharply from previous cycles. Historically, volatility surged as Bitcoin approached market peaks.

The current trend suggests a shift toward a larger and more liquid market. Fidelity compared Bitcoin’s growth to large-cap technology companies reaching maturity.

The firm notes that Bitcoin’s market size has expanded rapidly across cycles. The asset is now twice as large as its 2021 peak valuation.

Advertisement

It also stands nearly ten times larger than the 2017 cycle peak. Compared with 2013, Bitcoin’s market capitalization has expanded more than 200-fold.

Fidelity’s data shows volatility began declining in late 2023. At the time, Bitcoin traded near $27,000 before starting its latest rally.

Institutional Demand Reshapes Bitcoin Market Structure

Demand patterns have changed significantly as institutions enter the market. Public companies and exchange-traded products now hold a growing share of supply.

According to Fidelity Digital Assets, 49 public companies hold more than 1,000 Bitcoin each. Combined holdings exceed one million BTC.

Advertisement
Source: Fidelity Digital Assets

That amount represents more than five percent of Bitcoin’s circulating supply. The cohort has steadily increased holdings since early 2020.

Exchange-traded products have accelerated institutional accumulation. Spot Bitcoin ETPs launched in the United States in January 2024.

By January 2026, those vehicles collectively held nearly 1.3 million Bitcoin. This equals roughly 6.4 percent of the circulating supply.

Fidelity reported that the leading Bitcoin ETF surpassed $75 billion in assets within two years. Gold’s GLD ETF required almost seven years to reach that milestone.

On-chain metrics also suggest a calmer market cycle. Bitcoin’s market value to realized value ratio has remained near two throughout the current bull market.

Advertisement

Earlier cycles saw sharper expansions. The ratio reached six during 2013 and four during both the 2017 and 2021 cycles.

Fidelity estimates that reaching a ratio of four again would imply a $4.5 trillion Bitcoin market cap. That level corresponds to roughly $225,000 per coin.

The firm also introduced a “Profit to Volatility Ratio” metric. It compares profitable addresses with realized volatility.

That ratio has remained above 0.015 since late 2023. Fidelity describes this period as the longest stretch of stability in Bitcoin’s history.

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Crypto World

European Energy Crisis: How Russia and Qatar Shocks Are Threatening EU Industrial Power

Published

on

Nexo Partners with Bakkt for US Crypto Exchange and Yield Programs

TLDR:

  • Europe still imported 2 billion cubic feet per day of Russian LNG last year, half of Russia’s total exports.
  • Qatar supplies 20% of global LNG and declared force majeure, with production halted for at least one month.
  • The U.S. now controls over 50% of Europe’s LNG supply, giving Washington direct leverage over EU energy costs.
  • Gas prices have already surged over 50% as simultaneous supply shocks strain Europe’s limited energy alternatives.

European energy crisis pressures are mounting as Russia redirects LNG exports while Qatar declares force majeure on gas. Europe replaced cheap Russian pipeline gas with costly LNG after the Ukraine war began.

Now two simultaneous supply shocks are hitting the continent at once. Gas prices have already surged over 50% in recent days.

The EU faces limited alternatives and growing concerns about a 2022-style energy crunch that could once again disrupt factories across the region.

Russia Redirects Exports as Qatar Shuts Down Production

Before the Ukraine war, Europe relied on 15 billion cubic feet per day of Russian gas. That supply kept European manufacturing costs competitive for years.

After the conflict began, Europe sourced costlier LNG from the U.S., Qatar, and other producers. The transition raised energy costs for European industry considerably.

Advertisement

The EU still imported 2 billion cubic feet per day of Russian LNG last year. That volume is roughly half of Russia’s total LNG exports globally. Russia has now announced it will redirect those flows to China and India.

Bull Theory stated on X: “Russia announced it will redirect part of its LNG exports away from Europe to friendly countries like China and India immediately.”

Russia’s move comes before the EU’s 2027 legal ban on Russian gas takes effect. Moscow has clear incentive to act on supply leverage before that deadline.

European policymakers now face a difficult position with limited response time. New supply chains cannot be established quickly enough to fill the gap.

Qatar’s Ras Laffan facility shutdown has added another blow to Europe’s energy position. Qatar supplies 20% of all global LNG and declared force majeure after the closure.

Advertisement

Normal production is not expected to resume for at least one month. Europe had relied on Qatari LNG as a central part of its post-Russia supply plan.

U.S. Leverage Grows While European Industry Faces Closures

The United States now supplies over 50% of Europe’s LNG. This gives Washington leverage over European energy costs and industrial policy.

European manufacturers must either absorb higher costs or relocate operations to North America. Bull Theory noted: “This effectively allows the U.S. to weaponize energy costs, forcing European factories to either pay a massive premium or relocate.”

Unlike China and India, Europe has not built diverse energy supply chains. Both nations secured alternatives that shielded them from current disruptions.

Advertisement

Europe, by contrast, faces simultaneous shocks with very few substitutes. Brussels is caught between U.S. bargaining pressure and a supply gap that diplomacy cannot quickly fill.

If the Hormuz blockade continues for weeks, a second wave of factory closures becomes likely. A similar pattern to 2022 could emerge, with permanent industrial losses for the European energy crisis.

The EU’s manufacturing standing faces direct structural pressure as a result. The outcome depends on events largely outside Europe’s control.

Russia still earns billions from the EU despite current tensions. The coming 2027 ban removes Moscow’s incentive to keep flows stable.

Advertisement

Europe has few tools to address a supply failure of this scale. The energy challenge now extends well beyond what Brussels can manage alone.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Kalshi, Polymarket Eye $20B Valuations in Potential Fundraising: WSJ

Published

on

Kalshi, Polymarket Eye $20B Valuations in Potential Fundraising: WSJ

Prediction market platforms Kalshi and Polymarket are reportedly exploring new fundraising rounds that could value the companies at around $20 billion each, roughly double their most recent valuations.

Both platforms have held preliminary discussions with potential investors about raising fresh capital at the elevated valuation, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday, citing people familiar with the matter. The report noted that the negotiations remain at an early stage and may not result in deals or secure the targeted valuation.

Kalshi currently operates in the United States and offers markets allowing users to wager on outcomes tied to sports, politics, the economy and cultural events. The company was last valued at about $11 billion in December when it raised $1 billion from investors including Paradigm and Sequoia Capital.

Founded in 2018 by Tarek Mansour and Luana Lopes Lara, Kalshi received approval from the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission in 2020 to operate as a regulated exchange for event-based markets. The platform has since expanded rapidly and recently surpassed a $1 billion revenue run rate, with some estimates placing the figure closer to $1.5 billion.

Advertisement

Related: Kalshi, Polymarket face trading halt in Nevada after court rulings

Polymarket plans US launch later this year

Polymarket, launched in 2020 by Shayne Coplan, remains inaccessible to US users without a virtual private network but plans to introduce a regulated domestic version of its platform later this year. The company was valued at roughly $9 billion in October after Intercontinental Exchange, the owner of the New York Stock Exchange, agreed to invest up to $2 billion.

Both platforms have drawn attention from lawmakers and regulators. As Cointelegraph reported, US Democratic lawmakers are drafting legislation to regulate prediction markets after suspiciously timed bets on the timing of US and Israeli strikes on Iran raised insider-trading concerns.