I'll lay out my conclusion upfront: in this round of market, the selling pressure from old players is greater than the driving force of new funds. Even with institutions buying and expectations of interest rate cuts and pensions coming in, the selling will still happen. The cycle of Bitcoin is still there; it’s just that the violent up-and-down fluctuations will gradually decrease.

The following is my personal understanding and deduction; different voices are welcome for discussion.

1. Who is currently playing with Bitcoin in the market? (Changes in chips)

In the past, to discuss Bitcoin, we had to look at retail investors, such as wallet download numbers, Google search trends, and the number of exchange accounts opened. But now these indicators are becoming less useful because the real drivers of the market are no longer these groups. Retail investors buying a little doesn't matter; now it's major players who can outweigh ten thousand retail investors that are coming into the scene.

What you need to look at now is who is using big money to buy—like the ETF subscription data and the financing data of listed companies like MicroStrategy. The 'inflow channel' for Bitcoin has completely changed.

The first type of new players is listed companies.

For instance, MicroStrategy has already bought 628,000 Bitcoins, accounting for over 3% of the global total with an average cost of about 73,000 dollars. They buy almost every day and only buy without selling, it's practically a 'perpetual motion machine.' Although it seems very aggressive, Bitcoin fell 33% in the first half of this year, indicating they are still not the main force.

The second type is ETFs, which actually still rely on public funds.

The entire ETF system has already held 1.28 million Bitcoins, accounting for about 6%. The funds that have come in total around 55 billion dollars, with a calculated cost of about 43,000. The market value has tripled now, resulting in substantial profits.

The main force here is BlackRock, holding 740,000 coins. Although the inflow is steady, it’s not as aggressive as imagined—it's not the primary cause of price fluctuations. For example, Bitcoin fell from 110,000 to 74,000 this year, with ETFs selling less than 60,000 coins, accounting for less than 5%, which can be considered very passive. This also shows that this year's top is definitely not due to ETFs selling.

Additionally, the government level likely holds around 900,000 coins, which is also quite a significant amount.

A significant portion will never move, such as Satoshi's holdings and coins lost on-chain; together they may account for 25% of Bitcoin that has already 'disappeared.'

Currently, almost all of the Bitcoin that can circulate on the network has been mined, with a total issuance of 21 million coins, of which 19.72 million have been mined, leaving not much left. Only 450 new coins are produced daily, which is not enough to fill the gaps in MicroStrategy. The market is a game of existing stock.

Currently, about half of the chips are still in the hands of traditional players, such as old whales, exchanges, DeFi pools, and individual holdings. They have gone through one round after another of bull and bear markets and understand how cycles work. Therefore, when it's time to sell, they will decisively cash out.

In the first half of this year, Bitcoin corrected 33%, not because of ETF selling, but because these old players sold.

2. Is the four-year cycle still valid?

I personally believe the cycle is still in play; it’s just that it’s not the kind of violent fluctuations anymore but is slowly moving towards a 'gentle' bull market pace.

For instance, it used to be from 10,000 to 70,000 and then dropped to 15,000; now it seems more like from 50,000 to 120,000, then back to 70,000, and then continuing to rise to 150,000. In other words, the violent fluctuations have turned into pullbacks in a slow bull market.

This trend is due to the emergence of new forces that 'only buy and never sell.' Whether it's ETFs or companies like MicroStrategy holding, they are not here to speculate; they are aiming for digital gold and are willing to hold long-term. Although their chip ratio is currently only about 10%, which is not enough to completely change the market, they are already having an effect—'flattening volatility.'

For example, the largest pullback during the last bull market was from 65,000 to 29,000, a drop of 55%. This time, it has fallen from 110,000 to 74,000, only about 33%. Isn't it much more moderate?

3. So where is the top?

If Bitcoin is to rise to 200,000 or even 1,000,000 dollars, what will it rely on?

Besides the old topic of market loosening, what’s more important is the spread of 'faith'—it has to become a real global safe haven, regarded as digital gold, an asset to resist currency collapse. Then, pensions, sovereign funds, and central banks of various countries will really start to allocate it.

The current ETF is just the beginning; what truly matters is the large-scale funds behind it: such as national-level pensions and institutions like BlackRock that can casually adjust hundreds of trillions in assets. If they decide to allocate 5% of their assets to Bitcoin one day, the price could indeed jump to 200,000 dollars in one go.

When Bitcoin reaches 200,000, its market value will surpass Nvidia; if it hits 1,000,000, it would be on par with gold.

But the premise is:

1. New funds have to continuously come in to buy.

2. Old players need to be willing to hold and not sell, at least not to crash the market below 200,000.

The current problem is: many old players had a cost basis of only 20,000-30,000 in the last round, and now that it has risen to 100,000, the profits are quite substantial, making it inevitable for them to take some profits. However, if in the next round everyone’s cost is raised to above 50,000, then there might be expectations to cash out at 200,000.

From the ETF data, their cost basis is around 43,000; at what price will they cash out? It’s still unclear.

In my judgment, this round's top might be around 150,000 dollars, which is roughly a tenfold increase from the bottom. The reason is simple: old money is still dominating the pace; their logic is periodic arbitrage. New money may have a long-term consensus but it’s still not enough to support the market.

It's possible to reach 1,000,000 in the long term, but that's a matter for the next cycle.

These are all personal thoughts and do not constitute investment advice. Criticism is welcome.