I still want to talk about Bitcoin. If you are not a native Chinese speaker, I highly recommend reading this article because perhaps it is quite rare to find such a discourse in non-Chinese-speaking parts of the world, and it might help you understand the developments that lie ahead. If my judgment proves correct, we will witness a clear historical process unfold.

In 1971, U.S. President Richard Nixon announced the “decoupling of the U.S. dollar from gold” (the Nixon Shock), marking the collapse of the Bretton Woods system. The Federal Reserve could support government debt by printing money to buy Treasury bonds, which was the beginning of modern monetary theory. In the 1980s, U.S. President Ronald Reagan implemented policies such as tax cuts and large-scale military expansion, leading to a sharp increase in the fiscal deficit, from $900 billion in 1980 to $3.2 trillion by 1990. Economists at that time proposed the idea of “debt monetization,” where central banks would buy government debt to support fiscal spending.

In the 1990s, the Clinton administration achieved a fiscal surplus by significantly cutting expenditures and raising taxes. It was during this period that the idea of “fiscal independence” began to emerge, and economists suggested that deficit and debt crises could be solved through creative monetary means, known as “government monetary sovereignty.” From 2000 to 2008, the discussion declined, but the seeds of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) began to emerge. Following the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis, some economists began to suggest using unconventional methods to solve debt problems, such as having the Federal Reserve directly “print money” to support government spending or issuing extremely high-denomination coins in a manner similar to “super money.”

During this period, the United States saw the emergence of the “Super Money Theory.” This concept refers to the idea of resolving fiscal issues during a debt crisis by issuing a trillion-dollar coin. The core of this theory is to bypass the deadlock in Congress over raising the debt ceiling and provide a funding source for the government, with the theoretical value of the coin being potentially limitless. The theory was formally discussed in 2011, but in reality, a technical product based on this theory had already been created in January 2009: Bitcoin.

The development of human society over such a long period, when viewed from macro to micro perspectives, essentially revolves around three key factors: financial cycles, technological progress, and demographic variables. In traditional Chinese wisdom, this can be summed up as “天时地利人和” (the right time, the right place, and the right people). The reason Bitcoin has come this far is because all three of these factors were in place. It is well-known that similar attempts were made before the birth of Bitcoin, but why was it Bitcoin that succeeded? The answer lies in the fact that Bitcoin, from its inception, was designed with a complete reference to one of the most important theories in human development: the Kondratiev wave, or long-term economic cycle.

After the creation of Bitcoin, many other cryptocurrencies were launched with slight modifications to parameters, such as Litecoin. But why did only Bitcoin succeed in the end? It’s because the parameter of halving every 4 years was set with consideration of the Kitchin Cycle from the very beginning. Isn’t that a coincidence? The Kitchin Cycle, in economics, is a theory describing short-term fluctuations in business cycles, typically lasting around 3-5 years. It is mainly associated with short-term economic volatility and is also known as the inventory cycle. The variations in this cycle are due to the process of industry development, where the supply chain gradually becomes more efficient, meaning marginal costs decrease over time. However, since marginal costs can never decrease to zero, there will eventually be a point where they reach a limit.

If you replace the halving cycle with the Kitchin Cycle, it seems you can understand that using inventory release and the changing ratio of long-term holders to short-term holders to predict Bitcoin price fluctuations follows a logical pattern. Of course, the relevant data can be tracked from @Murphychen888 and @0xCryptoChan, as they have done an excellent and thorough job in this area, so I won’t go into detail here. As for technological innovation, it’s the usual discussion, so we’ll skip over that. Let’s first talk about population, and we’ll come back to the cycle later.

When the price of Bitcoin reached its peak in 2013, how many people around the world do you think were involved in Bitcoin investment? The approximate number is 1.5 million people. From just one person to 1.5 million, this stage saw Bitcoin prices rising without any excess. Then came a massive pullback, and by September 2015, at the lowest point of that cycle, only around 500,000 people remained involved in cryptocurrency investment, with the vast majority having given up. This number didn’t return to 1.5 million until December 2016, which coincided with the rise of Ethereum’s mobile wallets and the ICO boom. By the end of 2017, at Bitcoin’s highest point, the number of participants surged to 15 million, and by January 2018, Ethereum reached a peak of 22 million participants. Afterward, the market crashed.

By the end of 2018 and early 2019, the number of global participants in the cryptocurrency market had risen to 30 million. By the end of 2021, at Bitcoin’s highest point, the number of people involved in the crypto market globally reached 130 million. As everyone knows, the market crashed throughout 2022, and as of today, the total number of off-chain accounts worldwide is around 500 million. Due to overlapping accounts, the actual number of unique users is roughly 290 million.

Why has the cryptocurrency market continued to grow? Because more people have entered the space. Essentially, each project earns revenue by capturing incremental traffic. The fluctuations in the market are primarily driven by short-term speculation from major players. In the long run, it is the combination of narrative, technology, and operations that drives population growth, which in turn leads to increased capital inflows and ultimately provides excess returns.

Is it possible that the number of people participating in cryptocurrency investment will double in just one year by 2025, reaching 7% of the global population? I have my doubts. As we all know, the turning point for the mass adoption of the internet is widely considered to have been when the number of global users reached 1 billion. This milestone was achieved around 2005, when the internet began to expand from tech enthusiasts to ordinary consumers. This period coincided with the peak of the current Kondratieff (Kondratiev) cycle’s prosperity phase. The turning point for the widespread use of mobile internet also occurred when the number of users reached 1 billion, around 2013, which was just before the downturn of the current Kondratieff cycle.

Overall, the key stages of technological change that drive the inflow of population (traffic) generally occur around the core turning points of these long-term cycles.

Seen from the other perspective, what caused the break in population flow in the past? Why did the cryptocurrency market start to collapse after reaching 22 million participants in January 2018? Because the world’s largest Ponzi scheme, MMM, also had 22 million users, and its primary medium was Bitcoin. From 2009 to the end of 2018, this period can be considered the first Juglar cycle of cryptocurrency. This decade was both the wild, pioneering period for Bitcoin and the first curve of its life, where it was exploited by the black market. Therefore, many elites were unable to enter the market early on because, at its core, it was a period when the industry was immature and not yet fully understood or embraced by mainstream society.

The Juglar Cycle, also known as the investment cycle, consists of three Kitchin Cycles and lasts around 10 to 10.5 years. This cycle focuses on long-term capital investments in the cryptocurrency industry (protocols and consensus mechanisms), including investments in equipment (cryptocurrency mining rigs), production expansion, and application updates. It is typically accompanied by macroeconomic booms and busts. This is why, in the past, many felt that large mining operators dominated the cryptocurrency cycles. This cycle fully reflects the first stage of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, opening the public’s eyes to privacy, encryption, and the black market. Even today, many people who hold large amounts of Bitcoin come from the earliest groups involved in Ponzi schemes. For example, in 2023, a Chinese woman in the UK who held a significant amount of Bitcoin was tracked down by the government in connection with such activities. “Heroes are not asked about their origins” is a phrase that applies to Bitcoin as well.

The period from 2018 to 2019 was the core turning point where Bitcoin and cryptocurrency shifted from the dark to the light. By the end of 2018, governments and institutions began the earliest stages of bottom-fishing, and the rise of Bitcoin in the first half of 2019 was driven by institutional buying. The period from 2019 to 2029 represents the second Juglar Cycle for Bitcoin. The defining feature of this cycle is the increasing institutionalization, legalization, and national sovereignty surrounding Bitcoin. Currently, we can observe that the main forces driving Bitcoin have shifted from miners to large institutional players on Wall Street.

The Juglar Cycle has clear phases of prosperity, recession, and depression, so every 10 to 10.5 years, it always ends with asset prices declining from their peak. Two Juglar cycles make up one Kuznets Cycle, also known as the real estate cycle or infrastructure investment cycle. The Kuznets Cycle is now generally considered to span from 2020 to 2021. This is also the source of the trading indicators MA20/MA21 (Fibonacci sequence). The MA20/MA21 on the annual chart is often referred to as the “national fortune line.” The U.S. has only briefly fallen below this line twice in the past fifty years, and it is considered a fundamental indicator of a country’s development. When applied to Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency industry, this refers to the anchoring of ecosystem applications and consensus. Now, with this understanding, you might realize that the events of the past 15 years were all part of a historical inevitability.

The Kuznets Cycle is a mid-term economic fluctuation theory centered around population dynamics, urbanization, and infrastructure investment. In the context of the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency industry, it can be used to measure the transformation of the economic structure within the entire crypto market (application ecosystems), the process of urbanization (the segmentation and scaling of public blockchains), and investments in fixed assets (the top 50 cryptocurrencies by market cap on CMC). These insights are of significant guiding value for understanding the phase transitions in long-term cycles.

Do you really think that the past three Bitcoin cycles have all been accompanied by a 4-year halving cycle? In fact, what we’ve seen is the iteration of three Kitchin cycles. From 2009 to the end of 2013, the industry was immature, leading to a 5-year Kitchin cycle. From 2014 to the end of 2017, mining operators dominated, creating a 4-year Kitchin cycle. However, from 2018 to the end of 2021, we clearly saw a 3.5-year Kitchin cycle, during which the miner group began to retreat by 2021. In the latter half of 2021, the market was largely driven by the battle between institutions and retail investors pushing prices up. Therefore, from a numerical perspective, 2021 essentially formed a double top, a conclusion that remains consistent with the prediction I made in my article in January 2021.

The shortening of the Kitchin cycle, driven by the maturity of the industry chain, has been observed across various sectors. Currently, after the marginal cost of each industry reaches its limit, the average Kitchin cycle stabilizes at around 40 months, or 3.3 years. Do you feel like this Bitcoin cycle has been particularly difficult to understand, as if you can’t grasp how this trend came about? Essentially, this is due to a change in the inventory base of the Kitchin cycle, shifting from miners to ETFs. So, you can view this Bitcoin cycle as an extended cycle or, more pragmatically, as two different Kitchin cycles with different inventory bases overlapping each other.

Why did this cycle produce overlapping Kitchin cycles for Bitcoin? As of today, about 19.37 million Bitcoins have been mined, which accounts for approximately 92.2% of the total supply. By the time of the next halving in 2028, roughly 19.9 million Bitcoins will have been mined, about 95% of the total supply. With this ratio, a large-scale retreat of miners becomes an inevitable outcome. As more Bitcoins are mined, the mining reward reduces over time, leading to diminishing returns for miners. With fewer new coins being created, the market is transitioning from a miner-driven model to one dominated by other players, such as institutional investors and ETFs. This shift explains why the current cycle involves overlapping Kitchin cycles, as the structure of the market is changing significantly.

If my judgment is correct, then in this current cycle, or rather this extended long cycle, we won’t see the usual Bitcoin price peaks predicted by various data models typically associated with past cycles. You can understand this as a result of the overlapping of long cycles. So, based on short cycles, this cycle should clearly be a 3.5-year cycle. This means, starting from the peak in November 2021, the top of this cycle for Bitcoin should occur around April 2025.

I believe that in the coming years, Bitcoin will no longer replicate the kind of surge seen in 2023-2024. Over the past two years, Bitcoin’s detachment from the overall cryptocurrency market’s rise was largely due to the intervention of Wall Street ETFs. In just one year, it completed the fund flow that took the Gold ETF 20 years to accumulate. At this point, it has already exceeded its initial goals. As I discussed in my long article in 2018, the purpose of Bitcoin from its inception was to serve as a strong complement to the U.S. dollar system, siphoning various assets and currencies into the dollar-based ecosystem. This means that it will inevitably create a sustained and powerful Bitcoin-dollar joint siphoning effect. In such a system, Bitcoin has only one potential outcome: one day, it will become “digital gold,” replacing oil as the anchor for the U.S. dollar.

What we’re witnessing today, with the U.S. government heavily promoting the development of the cryptocurrency industry, is essentially an effort to establish a crypto-financial system through a government-Wall Street alliance. This would replace the old model of the deep government and, with a comprehensive approach, bypass the traditional financial systems of other countries under U.S. official supervision. It aims to create a firewall that could siphon global private wealth through the creation of cryptocurrency bull markets. Stablecoins, with their underlying assets being U.S. Treasury bonds, are a key tool in this process, and USDT (Tether) is one of the main purchasing forces. This means that Bitcoin’s price increase will drive global demand for dollar-backed stablecoins, which in turn will boost demand for the U.S. dollar and U.S. Treasury bonds. Simultaneously, non-U.S. currencies will continue to be sold off.

This is the essence of what is happening now. Bitcoin is the new medium of the US dollar, and the real impact is on other non-U.S. currencies and financial systems. In the future, a large number of non-U.S. In the future, a large number of non-US currencies will continue to lose their competitiveness. In the next few years, many currencies of small and medium-sized economies will be completely marginalized by Bitcoin and dollar-backed stablecoins. Therefore, China should not get involved in the cryptocurrency industry at the moment. The future of A-shares is to become MEME for a long time, which can essentially complete what the cryptocurrency market does without affecting the internationalization of the RMB. So, at this stage, China only needs to hold Bitcoin and Ethereum secretly without taking the spotlight. Many people have argued that the Chinese government has given up on the mining machine market. In fact, whether China gave it up or not, the Bitcoin cycle would still head towards the end of the miner-driven era. The one that really takes strong action is the U.S. government, and China is just playing along with the tide.

Bitcoin’s scale has now reached a certain boundary where the logic of rapidly accumulating excess premiums has sharply decreased and almost disappeared. For ordinary individuals, investment often requires explosive profits, but for institutions, this logic is clearly unsustainable. Are institutions driving the market up just to make inexperienced retail investors wealthy, as if it’s a storyline from a dramatic CEO short series? The current sentiment is that the U.S. stock market is nearing a century-old peak, with retail investors charging forward while the big players are loudly shouting “ALL IN” yet simultaneously retreating on a large scale.

The 7-fold increase in Bitcoin’s price over the past two years clearly wasn’t driven by ideals but rather by the strategy of drawing the counterparty positions to a large institutional level. The logic is that after a potential crash in the U.S. stock market, there will be a replacement market for funds, with Bitcoin and crypto playing that role. In essence, the story for the next few years will be “Don’t go, let’s play one more round.” At this point, further pushing the price up becomes less feasible. One reason is that the capital inflow has started to dwindle, and another reason is that even a 5-10% price fluctuation in Bitcoin could trigger liquidations that surpass the combined volume of events like the 2020 March crash or the 2022 LUNA and FTX collapses. This makes the one-way trend less relevant; instead, wide-range fluctuations could achieve the same result without needing to rely on a single upward trend.

Large institutions and corporate executives are not naïve—they’re seasoned players, the “thousand-year-old foxes”. On one side, there’s the long-time cultivation of retail investors, and now at the peak, they must be harvested. Every opportunity for profit must be seized, no mercy. On the other side, you’re asking, “Don’t go, let’s play one more round?” When the upside no longer works, it’s time for the downside. Bloodthirsty capitalists always chase profit, and only by soaking the chips in blood can they quiet their restless cravings for returns. The cycle is relentless: when it’s no longer profitable to push prices up, the downward pressure will take over.

Indeed, this cycle shares similarities with the past two Bitcoin cycles when they reached their peaks. The essence of investing is to buy when no one is paying attention and sell when the crowd is buzzing. How do we identify the moment when global attention is drawn to the market? In December 2017, the CEO of one of the largest market-making institutions in the crypto world, Zhou Shuoji, appeared on the cover of Time magazine. This moment symbolized the peak of the Bitcoin gold rush, attracting worldwide attention, and at the same time, Bitcoin reached the top of that cycle. In November 2021, FTX’s Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) appeared on the cover of Time magazine, symbolizing the financial elite’s involvement in Bitcoin once again capturing global attention. Similarly, Bitcoin reached the peak of that cycle. These moments serve as indicators of when Bitcoin has attracted widespread recognition and interest, often coinciding with market tops.

What similar “sign” has appeared this time? It’s the first time that Donald Trump has appeared on the cover of Time magazine with a positive portrayal. Trump had always been featured negatively on the cover, with Time never once offering a positive review. In December of last year, however, a positive depiction of Trump finally appeared, signaling a significant shift where the largest left-wing media outlet seemed to “surrender” to the right. This move marks the formal entry of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency onto the world stage, aligned with Trump’s image. Shortly after this news broke, Cai Wensheng, the chairman of Meitu Inc., sold off all of his Bitcoin holdings at the top, securing substantial profits. From the perspective of large funds, there’s no need to worry about any further price increases; what matters most is holding strength at the right position.

This round of Bitcoin’s extended cycle is essentially America’s trump card. Retail investors and non-frontline participants are barely considered part of the game. The ultimate target is the currencies of non-U.S. sovereign states. Each cycle of Bitcoin reshuffling is a process of expanding the funding capacity, systematically eliminating previous asymmetrical counterparty positions. This cycle is the inevitable result of Trump’s centralized power structure. If you ask me about the high point for Bitcoin in this cycle, I don’t believe it will exceed $123,000. In other words, the final price points predicted by past data and on-chain metrics will likely not materialize. This doesn’t mean the data is incorrect; rather, this cycle is fundamentally different, combining two distinct Bitcoin Kitchin cycles into an extended one.

When we return to the issue of Ethereum and altcoins, many people feel a sense of despair about Ethereum’s price. But let’s step back and address a more fundamental question: Do you think large institutions and executives from listed companies will want to play PVP and gamble with retail investors (the “gambling dogs” or “chives”) in MEME coins as a future strategy? The answer is clearly no. Ethereum hasn’t seen a significant rally so far because the “big players” haven’t finished their accumulation. Initially, the Ethereum foundation supported the ecosystem, creating multiple narrative tracks for investors to participate in, washing out the retail investors. In 2017, it was ICOs, in 2021 it was DeFi, GameFi, NFTs, and the Metaverse. However, this cycle is different. After the introduction of ETFs, the new “big players” have not accumulated enough tokens, so the old players are being forced to exit and unload their positions. This shift in dynamics means Ethereum’s price trajectory could be impacted by these new power structures.

To assess this situation, we can look at recent data indicating that there is still demand for Ethereum ETF, but BlackRock’s holdings are not enough to meet that demand, with only about 50% of the required amount. In this scenario, we are unlikely to see a premium forming; instead, there will likely be pressure to force the old players to sell their tokens. This suggests that the change of hands in Ethereum hasn’t been fully completed yet. Given where we are in the cycle, I believe this round of Ethereum will not complete its full move. However, by mid-year, we could see developments related to DeFi legalization and RWA (Real-World Assets), which should support Ethereum’s price increase. The peak for Ethereum will likely come a month after Bitcoin, around May, but its upward potential will be more limited.

The altcoin season will certainly come, but it won’t be the same as before with “all coins rising together.” This is similar to what happened in late July 2021 — the first half of the cycle didn’t see a peak for many coins, so those that haven’t risen should be abandoned. The next few months will bring a new wave of on-chain AI agents, much like how GameFi emerged in the second half of 2021. AI combined with the Metaverse, and the concept of DeFi+AI (DeFAI) are all on the horizon.The emergence of these new narratives will trigger a new wave of hype, and because they are all on-chain, traditional altcoins will have gone through a phase of refinement. Only the top-tier projects will remain relevant, and funds will no longer rush to smaller-cap coins, but rather focus on the front-runners. The coming months will witness a new altcoin season, and you can refer to what happened in the second half of 2021 for a comparison. The key question is when this will happen — simply watch for the altcoin season indicators to reach their peak.

So right now, the most concerned are Binance and BNB, and they are still heading toward their own peak. Logically, this peak will come about a month later than Ethereum’s. This marks the final wave of the centralized exchange altcoin frenzy. The last coin to hit the peak will be Sol, not because it will replace the Ethereum ecosystem, but because the ETF-related story will create illusions for retail investors. Essentially, it’s meant to mask the retreat of the big wave and offer an illusion of a glittering casino. When the story ends, various MEME tokens will be used to drain the funds within the market until it eventually transforms into an irretrievable entropy increase—this will be the final annotation of this cycle. In fact, Trump needs a major exchange truly under his control, and Musk’s renewed attention on CZ clearly isn’t without reason. Will Trump perhaps signal Musk to pursue further collaboration with CZ, either openly or secretly? As for how the story unfolds, I won’t elaborate here.

In the second half of the year, protocols related to DePin, or even AI + DePin + RWA, may emerge. Observing these new projects, in essence, there is no need to pay for them in this round because after the elimination phase, it won’t be too late to place a bet once they enter the final stages. Ultimately, cryptocurrencies need to move toward real-world offline applications, and the core that cannot be avoided is the concept of time and space verification. What will truly attract Wall Street and large institutions is a narrative beyond Bitcoin. Only scenarios that are both imaginative and have practical, real-world applications can captivate the sharpest investors. This will also serve as the footnote for the next round of Ethereum-level protocols.

In the end, will Ethereum rise dramatically? It definitely will. The second half of this long cycle of Bitcoin, or the next cycle, will be the era of Ethereum’s dominance. A lot of sectors are moving towards real data and real-world applications. This is like the year 2000 for AI; after 2001, the truly leading projects introduced groundbreaking products, marking the beginning of a new era. I also expect that the final crash in this cycle will include Restaking, which is the result of the highly evolved financial nature of the cryptocurrency market, leading to a crisis similar to the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis.

Similarly, I tend to believe that the major peak of the U.S. stock market’s ultra-long cycle will occur in the middle of this year, aligning with the cryptocurrency cycle. To understand this top, all you need to do is observe whether Nvidia starts to decline first and then whether Tesla rises to the peak in the end. Essentially, this is a situation of extremely high capital concentration. From BATMAAN to Tesla, one reason is that Musk is strongly tied to Trump and the new government, while the biggest MEME isn’t DOGE, but Musk himself. Therefore, Tesla is the MEME that emerges at the end of this grand feast.

Based on the above judgment, I tend to believe that by the end of 2025, we will not see Bitcoin rising. On the contrary, it will likely form a continuation of the downtrend at a lower point. The lowest point of this Bitcoin cycle, which will also mark the start of the next cycle, will occur around mid-2026. This low point won’t be too low, and my preliminary estimate is around $49,000, with more specific insights to be drawn from various data experts’ indicators at that time. Why this timing? After the U.S. stock market peaks, there will be a prolonged capital outflow frenzy until a key support level is reached. This support level will occur when everyone believes the market has bottomed, but in reality, it will be a continuation of the downward trend. At this point, we will see U.S. stocks continuing to decline, while Bitcoin and the overall cryptocurrency market will begin to diverge and move upward.

Only in this way will listed groups and large capital institutions begin to seek alternative markets to the U.S. stock market and place substantial bets. This logic will align with the timing of the rise of the A-share market. Essentially, both are alternatives to the existing capital markets, and for the U.S. dollar, the best solution is cryptocurrency. So, my preliminary judgment is that the next Bitcoin cycle’s peak will occur at the end of 2027. This will differ from most people’s understanding, as it is based on a four-year Kitchin cycle starting from the ETF launch in 2024. Therefore, this cycle can be viewed as a six-year super-long cycle, combining the mining inventory cycle that started in early 2022 and the ETF inventory cycle that began in early 2024, ending in late 2027. Currently, we are in the latter stages of the first half. If we separate the two halves, the second half will be the fifth wave of the 20-year full Bitcoin and cryptocurrency Kuznets cycle. It will be the final wave that ordinary people can enjoy, and naturally, it will also be the most frantic and intense one. This final wave will take place within the Ethereum and cryptocurrency ecosystems.

Bitcoin will not last forever. From its birth to its death, or from a time of boom to a period of decline, it will likely follow at most a full Kondratieff cycle. This is related to the overall development of the world; history is accelerating, not replacing itself. I expect that by 2029 at the latest, legislation will be introduced to anchor the U.S. dollar to Bitcoin, marking the eve of the revival of the next Kondratieff cycle. Both cryptocurrencies and AI will ultimately merge into the next wave, which will be the largest in human history.

The 2028 U.S. presidential election won’t be the time when markets rise until the end of the year. This is because, at its core, the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency market serves as an alternative to the U.S. dollar’s capital pool. Ultimately, Bitcoin is designed to “harvest” non-U.S. sovereign currencies at the national level, while Ethereum and other cryptocurrencies are meant to absorb fleeing capital. The on-chain narrative is the historical process of decentralization truly replacing centralization. The U.S. stock market is expected to peak and begin declining by 2027, reaching its bottom in about two and a half years. This timeline is nearly complete, as we are about to enter the recovery turning point, which means there won’t be a prolonged depression. This, in turn, means that the downturn will inevitably be fierce and destructive.

When the U.S. stock market begins to rise again in early 2028, AI will have already surpassed the 2000 tech stock bubble and started moving toward practical applications. Cryptocurrencies will have crossed the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis and entered the post-credit monetary era. Furthermore, after three years of historical collapse, if Trump can replicate Reagan’s economic revival, his re-election would likely help lift the U.S. stock market, rather than the high positions of cryptocurrencies at that time. If he cannot, then Wall Street capital wouldn’t need to bet on his re-election, and the tide would still recede from the cryptocurrency market. Therefore, the bottom of the next Bitcoin cycle should occur at the end of 2028, which aligns with the upcoming historical moment when the U.S. dollar will anchor to Bitcoin.

With this article, I have laid out my predictions for the future. History is a culmination of countless butterfly effects, and macro trends are not swayed by individual will. “Do not go gentle into that good night”. I believe that in 2025, we will witness many historical events together.

Disclaimer:

1. This article is reprinted from [Kai]. The copyright belongs to the original author [Kai]. If there are any objections to the reprint, please contact the Gate Learn team, who will handle the issue according to the relevant procedures.
2. Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not constitute any investment advice.
3. The article’s other language versions have been translated by the Gate Learn team. Unless otherwise stated, reproduction, distribution, or plagiarism of the translated articles is prohibited.