Source: X
Author: Chen Xiaomeng
Original Title: Historic First: An Asset with 100% Win Rate Over 4 Years
Key finding: If the strict criterion is "buy at any point and achieve a positive nominal total return after holding for 4 years,"
Among major high-risk tradable assets, only Bitcoin has achieved a 100% profit over a rolling 4-year historical period.
Compare major assets:
S&P 500: cumulative decline of approximately -64.8% from 1929 to 1932, and approximately -24.4% from 1999 to 2002,
2007–2010: approximately -3.2%, no guarantee of positive returns over four years.
Nasdaq 100: Approximately -60% cumulative decline from 2000 to 2003, with a peak decline of 83% after the bubble.
Gold: Approximately -47.7% from 1981 to 1984, followed by a 12-year bear market from 1987 to 1999.
Real estate: approximately -23.3% from 2007 to 2010, with low liquidity creating a smoothing illusion.
Long-term government bonds: approximately -19.8% from 2021 to 2024; corporate bonds: approximately -5.3%.
Exception: Low-risk contractual assets such as rolling short-term government bonds, government bonds with maturities of 4 years or less, and time deposits,
Due to the maturity redemption mechanism, a nominal positive return over four years is achievable, but it is fundamentally based on contract credit rather than asset appreciation.
Bitcoin's uniqueness: Based on daily data from 2010 to 2026, all 4,419 rolling 4-year windows yielded positive returns.
The worst case is +32.6% from April 2021 to April 2025 (annualized approximately 7.3%).
Despite multiple declines of 70-90%, there has never been a full four-year cycle with negative returns.
Conclusion: Assets exhibit a "dumbbell shape"—either low-risk contracts with guaranteed payouts, or high-growth early-stage assets like Bitcoin.
None of the traditional risk assets in the middle satisfy this. BTC's 100% value comes solely from historical price appreciation, with no issuer commitment.
Therefore, holding long-term is more important than frequent trading; leverage, swing trading, and similar strategies may disrupt this rare return distribution.
If we define the problem more strictly:
Buying at any point and holding for a full 4 years results in a positive nominal total return.
So the conclusion is very interesting:
Among high-risk, freely tradable mainstream assets, none can achieve "100% profitability over a 4-year rolling history" except this one.
But if low-risk fixed income is included, tools such as 4-year government bonds, rolling over short-term bonds, and term deposits can also achieve this.
And the latter's "100%" is truly not the same thing at all.
I. The S&P 500 cannot do it
Many people automatically assume:
Won't you make money just by holding U.S. stocks for four years?Actually, that's not true at all.
The long-term data maintained by New York University professor Damodaran includes dividends in the S&P 500 total return, covering the period from 1928 to 2025.
Here are a few very typical 4-year windows.
From 1929 to 1932, annual returns were approximately:
1929: -8.3%
1930: -25.1%
1931: -43.8%
1932: -8.6%
Over 4 years compounded:
Approximately -64.8%.
In other words: $1 million in, and only about $350,000 remains after four years.
From 1999 to 2002, even including the final surge of the 1999 internet bubble:
1999: +20.9%
2000: -9.0%
2001: -11.9%
2002: -22.0%
Total return over 4 years is still approximately:-24.4%.
From 2007 to 2010, during the financial crisis:
2007: +5.5%
2008: -36.6%
2009: +25.9%
2010: +14.8%
Even after the strong rebounds in 2009 and 2010, over four years it remains: approximately -3.2%.
So: The long-term win rate of the S&P 500 is very high, but it has never reached 100% over a 4-year period.
Two: The Nasdaq 100 is even less likely
According to official Nasdaq data, during the dot-com bubble burst, the Nasdaq 100:
2000: -36.4%
2001: -30.8%
2002: -38.9%
2003: +48.5%
Even with a nearly 50% surge in year 4, the total accumulation over this entire 4-year cycle is still: approximately -60%.
Nasdaq also noted that after the 2000 bubble peak, the index fell by approximately 83% in total.
So the historical performance difference between BTC and tech stocks on this point is very clear:
The tech stock sector could see a downturn so deep that it won't be filled over a full four-year cycle.
Bitcoin has not done so yet.
Three: Even gold can't do it
Gold is often considered the classic long-term store of value, but it can still lose significant value over four years.
For example, from 1981 to 1984, according to Damodaran's data:
1981: -32.6%
1982: +15.6%
1983: -16.8%
1984: -19.4%
4-year total:Approximately -47.7%.
Even more strikingly, the World Gold Association's own research shows:
From November 1987 to August 1999, gold experienced a nearly 12-year bear market, with a cumulative price decline of approximately 48%.
So although gold has very strong long-term monetary properties, four years is certainly not a safe time horizon.
Four, real estate is not either
When looking at the overall U.S. real estate market rather than a single lucky purchase, a similar negative four-year cycle exists.
In Damodaran's data:
Approximate annual returns in real estate from 2007 to 2010:
2007: -5.4%
2008: -12.0%
2009: -3.85%
2010: -4.12%
Total accumulated:-23.3%.
And real estate also has a visual illusion:
Houses don't trade daily like BTC or stocks, so their price curves appear smoother.
Actually, if there were a public market offering a price for your house every day,
The volatility of real estate is certainly much greater than what we normally perceive.
Five: Even long-term government bonds can't do it
This is actually the most likely to cause misunderstanding.Many people say:Aren't U.S. Treasuries risk-free assets?
The key distinction is between holding a government bond to maturity and trading a long-duration bond.
For example, the total return on 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds:
2021: -4.42%
2022: -17.83%
2023: +3.88%
2024: -1.64%
4-year cumulative:-19.8%.
The reason is that aggressive interest rate hikes began in 2022, causing older bonds with low coupon rates to plummet in market value.
Therefore: TLT, the 10-year Treasury bond index, and long-term bond funds are not “guaranteed four-year winning assets.”
Six, corporate bonds cannot do it either.
Baa corporate bonds during the same 2021–2024 period: +1.02%, -15.23%,+8.74%,+1.74%
After four years, it’s still approximately: -5.3%. So credit bonds can’t achieve it either.
Seven: What else can truly achieve "100% nominal profit over four years"?
Here we enter another category of assets.
Category 1: Rolling over U.S. short-term Treasury bonds
A 3-month T-Bill is a very typical example.
It doesn't profit from asset price increases, but rather:Buy at a discount → Redeem at face value upon maturity.
For example, you spend $99.50 to buy a T-Bill with a face value of $100, and at maturity, the U.S. Treasury pays you $100.
TreasuryDirect describes the mechanism for T-Bills in the same way:
The purchase price is typically below face value, and upon maturity, you receive the full face value—the difference is the interest.
Damodaran's annual U.S. T-bill data since 1928 has consistently shown positive nominal returns,
Therefore, continuously rolling over 3-month T-Bills has historically resulted in positive returns over any complete 4-year period.
But note:This is called:Not losing dollar amount.It does not mean:Not losing purchasing power.
For example, with 8% inflation and a 2% T-Bill yield, your account balance may increase, but your real purchasing power decreases.
Eight, Four-Year Term Deposit / CD
Suppose you find a 4-year CD with a 4% fixed interest rate and no early redemption;
The bank is not covered by insurance,the interest rate contract is valid,then after 4 years:
The nominal dollar profit is essentially determined on the day of purchase.
The U.S. FDIC insures eligible bank deposits and CDs, with the current standard coverage amount being:
$250,000 per depositor, per bank, per ownership category.
So the "four-year win rate of 100%" for this type of product essentially comes from the contract plus credit protection, not from asset price appreciation.
Nine: U.S. Treasury bonds with maturities of four years or less
This one too. For example, if you buy today: a U.S. Treasury bond maturing in 4 years with a yield to maturity of 4%,
Then hold until maturity; as long as the U.S. government makes timely payments, you don’t need to worry about bond price fluctuations at all.
Expiration:Principal and interest are paid as agreed,so the nominal return is essentially locked in at purchase.
But if you buy a 10-year Treasury bond and must sell it in year four, it’s a different story.
So there’s an important distinction here: a 4-year bond ≠ holding a long-term bond for 4 years—the former can lock in returns.
The latter has duration risk.
Ten: The One True God — Bitcoin
The Strategy report uses daily BTC/USD data from July 2010 to August 2026 to statistically analyze rolling holding periods starting each day.
Result:The worst total return over a holding period of 1 year was 73.1% to 83.6%.
2 years: 84.0%–68.3%, 3 years: 99.3%–34.7%, 4 years: 100.0%+32.6%
In other words, none of the 4,419 rolling four-year windows in its data ended in a loss.
The four worst years in history were: April 16, 2021 → April 16, 2025
Total return remains: +32.6%, equivalent to an approximate annualized CAGR of 7.3%.
Two words—unbeatable~
Eleven, so what truly deserves comparison is this table.
So an interesting dumbbell will appear:
Those achieving a 4-year nominal win rate of 100% are concentrated at two extremes.
On one end: low-risk, contract-based assets.
On the other end are assets like Bitcoin—high-growth, inherently shorting fiat currency, and still in the early stages of monetization.
But those traditional risk assets—stocks, gold, real estate, and long-term bonds—cannot do any of that.
Twelve, but the "100%" of BTC and the "100%" of government bonds have entirely different value.
This is the most critical part,100% of the T-Bill,the logic is:Know today exactly how much someone owes you in the future.
You primarily bear the U.S. sovereign credit risk.
100% of BTCthe logic is completely different.
Bitcoin:no issuer;no one promises to pay you a specific amount four years from now;no principal repayment;no coupon payments;no cash flow.
So the 4-year 100% for BTC comes entirely from: the historical market price eventually rising. And that’s precisely what makes it so unusual.
Thirteen: Final Investment Perspective
BTC may be one of the most prominent modern major risk assets with a record of positive nominal returns over any 4-year holding period.
But what’s truly impressive isn’t the three digits “100%”.
It has experienced repeated declines of 70% to 90%, yet still has not produced a complete four-year cycle of negative returns.
This is much better than simply saying "Bitcoin will rise in the long term."
This also highlights another issue:Whether you can hold on is far more important than constantly trading.
In particular, selling calls, leverage, swing trading, and yield enhancement all essentially alter this very rare long-term return distribution in some way.
The article and opinions do not constitute investment advice.
Twitter: https://twitter.com/BitpushNewsCN
BitPush Telegram community: https://t.me/BitPushCommunity
BitPush TG subscription: https://t.me/bitpush