{"id":79,"date":"2026-01-18T19:56:29","date_gmt":"2026-01-18T19:56:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/?p=79"},"modified":"2026-01-18T19:56:29","modified_gmt":"2026-01-18T19:56:29","slug":"is-bitcoins-cycle-changing-analyst-sees-55-65-chance-of-a-green-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/index.php\/2026\/01\/18\/is-bitcoins-cycle-changing-analyst-sees-55-65-chance-of-a-green-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Is Bitcoin\u2019s Cycle Changing? Analyst Sees 55\u201365% Chance of a Green 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Bitcoin\u2019s recent push above $97,000<\/strong> on January 14\u2014its highest level since November\u2014has reignited debate over whether the asset\u2019s long-standing market cycle is shifting. The move comes as a familiar historical price pattern shows signs of breaking down, prompting analysts to reassess what may lie ahead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Breaking the Historical Pattern<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Crypto analyst Egrag Crypto<\/strong> pointed out that for more than ten years, Bitcoin followed a consistent yearly rhythm: three bullish years followed by one bearish year<\/strong>, closely aligned with the four-year halving cycle. Traditionally, the year after a halving delivered strong gains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, that structure appears to have changed. Instead of the expected Green\u2013Green\u2013Green\u2013Red<\/strong> sequence, the 2023\u20132025 period printed Green\u2013Green\u2013Red<\/strong>, disrupting the historical pattern. Based on this deviation, Egrag assigns a 55% to 65% probability<\/strong> that 2026 closes in the green<\/strong>, viewing 2025\u2019s pullback as a cooling phase rather than the start of a prolonged downturn.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This outlook depends on several conditions, including strong monthly closes above $105,000<\/strong>, holding key support around $90,000<\/strong>, and sustained momentum on higher timeframes. A bearish 2026, which Egrag estimates at 35% to 45%<\/strong>, would likely involve extended consolidation and wider trading ranges rather than a sharp sell-off.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Analysts Weigh In as Price Rebounds<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The discussion mirrors comments from analyst PlanB<\/strong>, who cautioned against confusing the four-year cycle with the stock-to-flow model. While post-halving years have historically performed well, he acknowledged that 2025 broke that trend<\/strong>. PlanB noted that stock-to-flow reflects average prices across a cycle, not market tops or bottoms, adding that the current cycle\u2019s average price near $90,000<\/strong> is far above the previous cycle\u2019s $34,000<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the time of writing, bitcoin was trading just below $97,000<\/strong>, up roughly 2% on the day<\/strong>, nearly 8% for the week<\/strong>, and about 12% over the past month<\/strong>, according to CoinGecko. The rapid move from below $90,000<\/strong> to near $98,000<\/strong> saw BTC reclaim several former resistance levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Analysts are now watching the 50-week exponential moving average near $97,500<\/strong> as a key technical zone, following bitcoin\u2019s reclaim of the $95,000<\/strong> level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Holder Behavior Signals Caution<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While long-term structure looks resilient, short-term holders appear more cautious. Analyst Darkfost<\/strong> reported that over 40,000 BTC<\/strong> in profits were sent to exchanges in a single day as prices rebounded, suggesting some traders are locking in gains after the late-2025 correction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meanwhile, bitcoin\u2019s market dominance has climbed above 57%<\/strong>, with most major altcoins lagging, reinforcing BTC\u2019s relative strength during the current recovery.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Bitcoin\u2019s recent push above $97,000 on January 14\u2014its highest level since November\u2014has reignited debate over whether the asset\u2019s long-standing market cycle is shifting. The move comes...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-79","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=79"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":81,"href":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79\/revisions\/81"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.coinsignals.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}