Alex Thorn Says Bitcoin 2024 Halving Cycle Dramatically Underperforms Prior Halvings

Bitcoin’s 2024 halving cycle is “dramatically” underperforming prior halvings, according to Alex Thorn, the head of firmwide research at Galaxy.

Thorn compared price action since the April 2024 Bitcoin halving to cycles triggered in 2012, 2016 and 2020, arguing the current cycle shows “significantly dampened volatility and lower upside.”

Bitcoin Magazine

In Cointelegraph’s account, the all-time high above $125,000 on Oct. 5, 2025 was only 97% above the 2024 halving price around $63,000.

Cointelegraph also contrasts that limited gain with the 2012 halving cycle’s about 9,294% increase to a high of about $1,163, and the 2016 cycle’s about 2,950% climb to about $19,891.

The 2020 halving saw a price increase of about 761%, Cointelegraph reports, placing the current cycle’s outcome in sharp relief.

In a separate framing, KuCoin says Thorn’s comparisons hinge on the “all-time high above $125,000, reached on Oct. 5, 2025,” and that it was “only about 97% above the 2024 halving price near $63,000.”

MEXC similarly describes the same timeline, saying Thorn shared in an X post that “Cycle four is dramatically underperforming prior cycles,” and asking whether it is “the new normal, or will the cycle evolve in unforeseen ways?”

Beyond raw price gains, multiple outlets tie the weaker 2024 halving cycle to a measurable cooling in volatility.

Cointelegraph says the 30-day Bitcoin Volatility Index “spiked to 9.64% on April 2, 2020,” but “has not been above 3.11% in the current cycle,” with a reading “last tipped on Aug. 24, 2024.”

CoinDesk

It adds that “At last look, the latest 30-day estimate for that volatility gauge is 1.75%, according to Bitbo data.”

The Korean-language Asian outlet likewise reports that the 30-day volatility index “surged to 9.64 percent on April 2, 2020,” while in the current cycle it “did not exceed 3.11 percent recorded on Aug. 24, 2024,” and that “The latest 30-day estimate is 1.75 percent.”

MEXC repeats the same volatility thresholds, stating that “The 30-day Bitcoin Volatility Index has not surpassed 3.11% in the current cycle,” and that “the last reading above that level recorded on Aug. 24, 2024.”

It also says “The latest 30-day figure sits at about 1.75%, according to Bitbo data.”

Cointelegraph’s analysis links the compression to changing market dynamics, saying “The decreasing volatility in each successive BTC halving cycle suggests that traditional market dynamics are changing.”

In the same account, Thorn argues BTC’s price “may start to be influenced more by other factors, rather than the halving or the four-year cycle market theory.”

Several reports connect the apparent underperformance to a break in the usual halving timing, pointing to a record high before the April 2024 halving.

Cointelegraph says critics argue the comparison “ignores the premature all-time high before 2024’s halving BTC reached what was then the all-time high above the $70,000 level in March 2024 — one month before the April 2024 halving.”

It adds that “The approval of spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in the United States in January 2024 was the primary catalyst for the price pump.”

KuCoin similarly describes how “Bitcoin [BTC]broke its usual sequence in early 2024,” saying “Price reached about $73,750 in March, weeks before the April halving.”

It then states that “the launch of Spot Bitcoin ETFs” in January 2024 drove “Institutional inflows” that “crossed $57.6 billion by April 2026, absorbing large amounts of BTC.”

KuCoin frames the mechanism as early demand consuming expected upside, saying “price discovery advanced ahead of schedule, consuming part of the expected upside before the halving.”

The Asian outlet also ties the March record to ETF-driven inflows, stating that “In March 2024, a month before the April 2024 halving, bitcoin already set a then record high above $70,000,” and that it was “interpreted as largely due to inflows after approval of U.S. spot bitcoin exchange-traded funds driving prices higher.”

In the same Asian account, the counterargument is explicit: “an opposing view has also been raised that the cycle can appear relatively weaker when judged only by post-halving performance.”

While the cycle’s upside is described as muted, outlets also highlight how drawdowns may be less severe than in earlier bear markets.

Cointelegraph says “Bitcoin drawdowns have also become less severe, as volatility has declined,” citing Fidelity Digital Assets.

Cointelegraph

It reports that “Previous Bitcoin bear markets have seen declines between 80% and 90%, according to Zack Wainwright, a Fidelity Digital Assets research analyst,” and contrasts that with “Bitcoin’s crash to $60,000 from the all-time high above $125,000 represents a decline just north of 50%.”

The Asian outlet similarly quotes Fidelity’s analyst, saying “Jack Wainwright (잭 웨인라이트), an analyst at asset manager Fidelity, pointed out that declines in past bitcoin bear markets were generally about 80 to 90 percent,” and that “This time, even the fall from a peak above $125,000 to $60,000 amounted to just over a 50 percent decline.”

Both accounts use the same peak-to-trough framing, but they attribute it to different spellings of the analyst’s name across sources.

Cointelegraph then brings in a longer-range view from Jan van Eck, stating that “In March, Jan van Eck, CEO of asset management company VanEck, said that BTC is close to bottoming out and that he expects the price to begin gradually rising again in 2026.”

The Asian outlet echoes that expectation, saying “Jan van Eck (얀 반에크), chief executive officer of VanEck, said in March that bitcoin was nearing a low and had expected prices to rise gradually again from 2026.”

Cointelegraph also provides a near-term market reading, saying “At last look, the biggest crypto was trading at about $74,703, up almost 5% in the last seven days, according to TradingView data.”

MEXC likewise reports “As of the latest readings, Bitcoin was trading near $74,703, with fresh momentum up modestly over the past week.”

The sources diverge in how they interpret what the weaker cycle means, even as they share many of the same underlying numbers.

“Home»News»Crypto News The halving cycle, long considered the compass of the crypto market, shows signs of exhaustion”

Cointribune

Cointelegraph frames Thorn’s conclusion as a potential regime shift, saying “The decreasing volatility in each successive BTC halving cycle suggests that traditional market dynamics are changing” and that BTC’s price “may start to be influenced more by other factors, rather than the halving or the four-year cycle market theory.”

Cointribune

It then reports critics’ counterpoint that “The approval of spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in the United States in January 2024 was the primary catalyst for the price pump,” and that the early all-time high “skewed the current cycle’s price performance.”

KuCoin, meanwhile, emphasizes institutional demand and market structure, describing “Institutional inflows” crossing “$57.6 billion by April 2026” and saying on-chain metrics like “MVRV Ratio hovered near 1.3, while Net Unrealized Profit/Loss (NUPL) remained around 0.26.”

It also cites derivatives conditions, saying “Open Interest (OI) expanded steadily without sharp spikes, while Funding Rates remained balanced,” and attributes the data to “Source: CryptoQuant.”

Cointribune takes a more categorical tone, saying “The finding is unequivocal: the current cycle significantly underperforms its predecessors,” and quoting Thorn’s question: “the fourth cycle significantly underperforms compared to previous ones… Has this become the new norm, or just a temporary phase before returning to normal?”

The Asian outlet presents the debate as a direct confrontation between “analysis that the current cycle is weaker than in the past” and “counterarguments that pre-halving ETF effects distorted performance comparisons,” and then points to the next variable: “which variables bitcoin prices will be more sensitive to going forward.”

Across the accounts, the common thread is that the cycle’s weaker post-halving performance is being interpreted either as a structural change in volatility and market dynamics, or as an artifact of ETF-driven demand arriving before the halving.