Bitcoin has ceased to be an asset governed by its internal issuance mechanism, the halving, and has become an example of global macroeconomic liquidity. In 2026, the narrative based on a historical pattern of programmed scarcity and retail euphoria ceased to be the primary driver of its price.
Today, Bitcoin operates under a market structure dominated by institutional flows and a close correlation with traditional risk assets, which dilutes historical predictability in favor of an unprecedented structural maturity.
Despite its dominant narrative, Bitcoin’s current problem is that it has not reached its peak cycle and is experiencing a collapse similar to those seen in 2013, 2017, and 2021. This view, however, ignores the fact that the market has changed: from being a highly volatile currency for retail investors, Bitcoin has transitioned to a permanent component of institutional portfolios.
This shift is key to understanding that, despite corrections, the market floor has risen thanks to the massive absorption of ETFs, invalidating past cycle models.
From physical scarcity to financial liquidity
Historically, the Bitcoin cycle was divided into 48-month phases. The halving reduced the supply of new gold, the narrative spread among retail investors, and the price entered a phase of parabolic discovery. However, there is a historical precedent outside the crypto sector that better explains what we are experiencing today: the liberalization of the gold market in the 1970s.
After the end of the gold standard, gold experienced cycles of extreme volatility similar to Bitcoin’s, with vertical rises and violent corrections as the market learned to value it. It wasn’t until the emergence of the first derivative financial products and the entry of central banks as strategic accumulators that gold stabilized its behavior.
Bitcoin is following that same path at a speed ten times faster. While in 2020 the daily issuance of 900 BTC was the determining factor, by 2026 the daily absorption of spot ETFs in the US has far exceeded mining production, making planned scarcity a secondary factor compared to the demand for asset management.
The new dominant factor: the institutional era
Evidence of this structural transformation can be found in current market metrics. By early 2026, the assets under management (AUM) of Bitcoin ETFs in the US had reached milestones ranging from $103 billion to $191 billion. This capital is not short-term speculation but rather represents a strategic allocation of pension funds and corporate treasuries.
A key verifiable data point is Bitcoin’s correlation with the Nasdaq 100. In 2024, this correlation averaged 0.23; by late 2025 and early 2026, this indicator had climbed to levels of 0.52. This demonstrates that Bitcoin no longer depends solely on the timing of the halving but reacts in a synchronized manner to global liquidity conditions (M2) and the Federal Reserve’s interest rate decisions.
Furthermore, open interest in Bitcoin futures on the CME (Chicago Mercantile Exchange) reached record highs above $12 billion, solidifying regulated markets as the primary center for price discovery, surpassing the unregulated offshore exchanges that dominated previous cycles. This market professionalization enables hedging strategies that reduce volatility, smoothing out both parabolic rises and systemic falls.
Bitcoin as a global liquidity index
Unlike tech stocks, which depend on quarterly earnings, or gold, which has industrial physical demand, Bitcoin in 2026 is the asset most sensitive to the expansion or contraction of the global money supply.
In the flow of institutional capital, there is a structural shift in the narrative: Bitcoin is now integrated into the financial system. This implies that the four-year cycle has been replaced by the global liquidity cycle. When central banks inject capital, Bitcoin is the first to react due to its inelastic supply and ease of access via ETFs.
Can the psychological cycle survive?
Proponents of the continuity of the traditional cycle argue that as long as most participants believe the four-year cycle exists, they will act accordingly, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is a valid argument: market sentiment remains a powerful factor, and retail investors can still trigger liquidation cascades.
However, for this to happen, we would have to ignore the fact that the percentage of supply held by institutions has increased from less than 5% in 2020 to more than 24% in 2026. A scenario that would invalidate my maturity thesis would be a coordinated global ban on self-custody or a critical bug in the protocol code.
Conclusion
In conclusion, 2026 is not the end of Bitcoin, but rather the year of its confirmation as a mature macroeconomic asset. Historical predictability based on halving dates should be replaced by an analysis of capital flows and monetary conditions.
If net inflows into Bitcoin ETFs remain above $50 billion annually and the correlation with the Nasdaq stabilizes above 0.50, then Bitcoin will not experience another 80% drop from its highs, confirming that structural volatility has permanently declined.
Conversely, if Bitcoin loses the critical support level of $60,000 due to a massive withdrawal of institutional capital in the face of a sovereign debt crisis, we will have underestimated the fragility of its new structure.
