Author: Alex Thorn, Galaxy
Compiled by Jiahuan, ChainCatcher
Throughout Bitcoin's 17-year history, its price has consistently moved within long-term cycles. Roughly every four years, it rises to a frenzy-driven peak, followed by a painful decline to a bottom, before beginning a new recovery.
This rhythm has historically been anchored by a four-year halving event, which directly cuts the regular rate of new supply in half. Although the impact of consecutive halvings is waning and the market is flooded with predictions of "super cycles," empirical data once again shows that the four-year cycle remains intact.
This report examines these fluctuations and a pattern that has emerged in Bitcoin’s modern history: each fluctuation has been milder than the previous one.
The peak in October 2025 was the calmest top in Bitcoin’s history, and the subsequent decline was also unusually mild. Given how restrained this high point was, should we expect the final cycle bottom to be unusually shallow as well? If so, approximately where might that bottom lie?
This report assumes that the bottom of the current drawdown has not yet been reached and provides data to support this assumption. The data also suggests that the calmer peak in October 2025 could lead to a higher cycle bottom.
Historical analogies suggest that the base case bottom for the current pullback lies between $40,000 and $46,000, likely occurring between now and the fourth quarter of 2026. (The base case is for illustrative purposes only; actual outcomes may differ substantially.)
The key point is that this report relies entirely on market data, on-chain data, and time-cycle analysis. The cycle bottom range we project does not use or depend on assessments of the likelihood, timing, or impact of external events such as regulatory, market, or geopolitical developments.
Is Bitcoin’s four-year cycle still valid?
Each Bitcoin cycle has experienced a journey from the previous low, through the halving, to the peak, and back down to the next low. Here are the four cycles, including the current one:
The bottom of the current cycle has not yet formed. As of the report date of June 9, 2026, the drawdown magnitude and elapsed time are data "to date."
Please note two patterns underlying this report: first, the decline from peak to trough in each cycle has been decreasing (from 85% to 84%, then to 77%); second, historically, a bottom has typically formed approximately 12 to 13 months after each peak. The current cycle has only been eight months since the most recent peak.
Compared against an index, the October 2025 peak appeared notably restrained relative to previous cycle highs. As a result, the average price paid by the market for its held coins—known as the realized price or "cost basis"—is exceptionally close to the historical high, reaching 43.7% of the previous all-time high (ATH).
In comparison, during previous cycles, this ratio was typically only one-third or even lower.
This is a critical data point: if a sell-off of the same magnitude as the previous bear market were to occur, this time it would stabilize at a much higher dollar price. Comparing the timing, amplitude, and on-chain metrics of past cycles, the current pullback may find support in the following range:
The above price levels and analysis in the report support our view that the bottom of this cycle has not yet been reached. Very few historical cycle bottom indicators have been triggered; in terms of time, the current decline remains relatively short compared to historical drawdowns; and once genuine panic sets in, the cost basis itself will also decline.
Our core argument is: empirically, the four-year cycle remains valid, but its amplitude has narrowed. A calmer peak has raised the floor, but not eliminated it.
How can data be used to accurately identify the peaks and troughs of a cycle?
It is nearly impossible, or at least extremely difficult, to precisely capture formations at the top or bottom as they are developing; but looking back afterward, everything always becomes clear. Therefore, our approach is to list the conditions that have previously appeared at past tops and bottoms, and then assess how many of them are currently occurring simultaneously.
To establish a framework for evaluating past market tops and bottoms, we examine five types of evidence: valuation (relative to holders’ purchase costs, is the current price high or low?), profit-taking (are holders selling aggressively or capitulating under pressure?), miners (are the participants producing Bitcoin thriving or under stress?), trend (how far has the price deviated from its long-term average?), and sentiment (is it greed or fear?).
Applying this five-dimensional perspective to the extremes of the current cycle reveals a clear picture: Bitcoin’s volatility is decreasing. Each peak is less frenzied than the previous one, and the subsequent corrections are becoming shallower.
If this amplitude "contraction" is real and holds true at both ends, it can provide valuable insight into the anticipated cycle low during the current drawdown. We can use this to estimate a range predicting where Bitcoin may bottom out in the current drawdown.
This analysis requires us to first define the metrics and establish benchmarks to identify cycle tops and bottoms. We apply the same scoring methodology to both ends, comparing them against the levels reached by each past top and bottom.
Review the cycle top
The top is real, but it was also the calmest on record. At October's peak, only two of the eleven classic warning signals reached a barely perceptible early-top level.
The clearest valuation metric—the Market Value to Realized Value ratio (MVRV), which measures how high the price is relative to the average price paid by holders—peaked at only 2.29, compared to MVRV levels between 2.93 and 5.91 during the previous three tops.
The entire "Greed" indicator cluster recorded its lowest-ever cycle top reading, and the Pi cycle top—a timing signal that previously predicted the last three tops with errors of just a few days—did not trigger at all, marking the first time in Bitcoin’s history.
However, in terms of timing, it is textbook-perfect: this peak occurred exactly 1,062 days after the previous low, matching precisely the timing of the peaks in 2017 and 2021.
The turning point was that the real frenzy emerged about 18 months earlier, around the time the U.S. launched spot Bitcoin ETFs; even after the enthusiasm faded, prices continued to rise. Looking back, this appeared more like institutional buying rather than the retail-driven frenzy that typically triggers a top-level spike.
The chart below shows the complete top indicators for the current cycle, anchored to the all-time high in October 2025.
Of the eleven magnitude signals: two were confirmed, two were only partially confirmed (reaching at least 85% of the threshold), and seven did not trigger. The two confirmed signals (RSI and SOPR) barely exceeded their weakest thresholds set in 2021 and reached their peaks in 2023 and 2024, respectively, rather than at the price high in October 2025.
The key point is that, although the cycle clock arrived on schedule, the Pi cycle top signal has not triggered (since time is a calendar fact rather than a measure of top-level frenzy, these two indicators are treated separately).
The "historical top range" refers to the price ranges at the peaks of the 2013, 2017, and 2021 cycles; the threshold is set at the least extreme of these three (the 2021 peak), representing the most accessible top barrier to cross. The "cycle peak" denotes the most extreme value for each metric during the current cycle and the month in which it occurred. Reserve Risk and the Pi Cycle Ratio use our proprietary measurement scales.
Project the cycle bottom
During this drawdown, only 4 of the 13 bottoming signals were triggered, with 3 of them being weaker indicators: fear sentiment, a trend indicator reaching the bottom zone, and the first break below the 200-week moving average.
The fourth signal, which reversed in early June, was the first warning from miners: the Hash Ribbons showed a recovery crossover. This occurs when the 30-day average hash rate rises back above the 60-day average after a period of capitulation—a pattern historically associated with market bottoms.
The strongest signals marking each true bottom—price falling below the cost basis, holders collectively in loss, sustained selling pressure, and deep panic-driven washing out—have not yet appeared. The current 51% decline remains significantly milder than the 77% to 85% lows that ended previous cycles, and also shallower than the 53% drop in mid-2021.
But the rhythm has changed. Measured at the same point in the cycle (approximately eight months after the peak, or 242 days), the recent decline has pushed the current drawdown to just below the level seen during the same phase of the 2013–2015 cycle, when a relief rally occurred and the decline was −48%.
Therefore, it is no longer the shallowest drawdown path on the chart (it was the shallowest for most of this drawdown). The 2017–2018 and 2021–2022 cycles were significantly deeper at this stage (both nearing −68%). According to the cycle clock, the window for the bear market low is not expected to open until late 2026.
Each curve tracks the decline from the peak of a cycle, aligned starting from day 0. By around day 242 (dashed line), the current cycle (orange, −51%) has slightly dipped below the level of the 2013–2015 cycle (−48%), no longer remaining the shallowest drawdown (which it had been for most of its duration).
The other two previous cycles reached approximately -68% at this stage. All cycles are currently at levels significantly higher than the current price (the green band represents the bottom zone of past bear markets).
The chart below shows the complete bottom indicator scorecard for the current drawdown, using indicators that have previously signaled cycle bottoms.
Out of the 13 target metrics, 4 have been reached, 2 are nearing completion, and 7 remain unmet.
To illustrate the significance of these bottom indicators, the table below lists the times they were triggered during previous cycle bottoms, compared to today.
Align these 13 identical signals with the past three cycles—the pattern is clear: at every previous bear market low, all 13 indicators eventually entered bottoming territory, with the only difference being timing—some signaled early, while others lagged.
Today, only four indicators were touched, and the only miner-side metric—the hash rate band—was only recently triggered. (A notable difference is that this hash rate band reversal appears to have occurred prior to the bottom, rather than lagging behind it as in past cycles. This may be due to externalities arising from Bitcoin miners’ transition toward artificial intelligence, a phenomenon unseen in previous cycles.)
The numbers in the past cycle cells indicate the number of days each metric led (−) or lagged (+) the cycle price low within a 180-day window. Hash band refers to the recovery crossover; cycle clock refers to the 12th month after the peak.
Each indicator has been triggered at the past three bottoms; the significance of the signal lies in whether it lights up ahead of or behind the bottom. The low for this cycle appears to have not yet arrived, so this column only shows whether each checkbox has been checked since the price high in October 2025.
The highs are getting lower, and the lows are getting higher.
Before drawing any conclusions, let’s establish a foundational fact upon which the rest of this report relies: Bitcoin’s volatility has narrowed at both ends.
The heat at the top has cooled in each cycle (MVRV sequentially at 5.91, 4.72, 2.93, 2.29), while the bottom has risen in each cycle, with MVRV increasing from 0.56 in 2015 to 0.69 in 2018, and then to 0.75 in 2022.
In other words, the distance between the most overvalued and most undervalued points in each cycle is continuously narrowing. The crash prices tell the same story: previous declines were −85%, −84%, and −77%, whereas this time the drop so far is only −51%.
The ratio of price to cost basis (MVRV) at each peak (red) and subsequent trough (blue) is converging toward "fair value" (1.0) from both directions. The data suggests that this cycle has likely not yet reached its bottom (the hollow diamond represents the deepest reading so far). This describes the cycle pattern but does not guarantee where the bottom of this cycle will occur.
The top cooling and bottom rising describe the three completed cycles, not a natural law. By itself, this does not prove that the next low will be shallower.
But it allows us to pose a precise question and provide a definitive answer: To what extent does the magnitude of the dollar’s decline depend on the level of enthusiasm at the previous peak, if a bottom behaves similarly to past bottoms?
Elevated price floor
MVRV is simply the current price divided by the on-chain cost basis. Conversely, the cost basis equals the all-time high divided by the MVRV at the peak. Therefore, a lower MVRV at the peak means the cost basis is closer to the peak.
Since October's peak was the calmest in history (MVRV at 2.29), the cost basis ended up at 43.7% of the all-time high, compared to 34.2%, 21.2%, and 16.9% at the peaks of 2021, 2017, and 2013, respectively. A calm peak does not suppress the floor; all else being equal, it brings the cost basis closer to the peak, thereby raising the floor.
The cost basis as a percentage of each cycle's all-time high has been rising steadily, reaching 44% by 2025, precisely because each peak has been milder. Annotations on each bar indicate the dollar decline a typical traditional bottom pattern would correspond to during that cycle.
By fixing the bottom performance (assuming each cycle bottoms at the same MVRV), it becomes clear that the dollar declines in each cycle are shrinking, purely due to a higher starting cost basis. The table below demonstrates this without any predictions:
Each cell represents: the decline calculated based on the cost-to-peak ratio specific to that cycle, assuming the cycle's MVRV hit its low in that column.
The bottom performance is identical across the same row; only the calmness of the top varies. A typical traditional bottom (MVRV of 0.70) meant an 88% decline in 2013, but only a 69% decline in this cycle. This merely isolates the impact of the top—it’s arithmetic, not an assertion that a calmer top necessarily leads to a higher bottom.
Where is the bottom this time?
The bottom is not determined by a fixed percentage, but rather relative to two key anchors: the cost basis and the 200-week moving average (200w MA), which has consistently served as long-term price support throughout Bitcoin’s history.
Measured by these two benchmarks, the previous three bear market lows all fell clearly below both: averaging about −33% below the cost basis (reaching as deep as −44% in 2015) and about −14% below the four-year moving average.
Two points are worth noting.
First, the gap below the cost basis has been shrinking each cycle (−44%, −31%, −25%), mirroring the contraction seen at the top.
Second, today’s price hasn’t even reached that zone yet. Even after a 51% decline, Bitcoin’s price remains 14% above its cost basis—never having broken below it during this cycle—and is only 1.5% below the four-year moving average. Based on historical benchmarks for identifying previous bottoms, this bottom has not yet been reached.
In the past, each bear market low fell significantly below both the cost basis (blue) and the four-year moving average (purple). Previous lows were well below both levels; today’s price remains above the cost basis and only slightly below the 200-week moving average, with the gap below the cost basis narrowing with each cycle.
The conclusions from the anchor and arithmetic calculations align. When translating past gaps to today’s anchor, they point to the same region: a breakdown of 25% to 44% below the cost basis, roughly equivalent to $30,000 to $40,000; the gap for the four-year moving average spans approximately $41,000 to $62,000.
This suggests that the true bottom is likely below the current price but significantly higher than the levels seen during past declines of 75% to 85%.
Converting the arithmetic into price, based on the current cost baseline of $53,000, yields not a single number but a set of scenarios; let’s first examine the middle one.
Our baseline scenario assumes the bottom merely continues the trend of gradually converging toward fair value (MVRV of 0.75 to 0.86), likely landing between $40,000 and $46,000. In a more severe, 2018- or 2022-style deep cleanup (MVRV of 0.56 to 0.70), the price could fall to between $30,000 and $37,000.
If the outcome is more moderate—that is, steady buying absorbs the decline near the cost basis (MVRV between 0.95 and 1.01)—price would likely range between $51,000 and $54,000; merely touching the upward-sloping four-year moving average ($62,000) would result in a decline of approximately -51%. (For illustrative purposes only. Actual results may differ substantially.)
Several scenarios plotted by price. The cost basis and the four-year moving average trending upward (historically proven to align with bottoms) are significantly higher than the outdated "75% to 85% decline" range (gray, no longer in use).
The colored bands translate historical bottom patterns into today's USD prices. These prices assume that the bottom has already formed, not that a bottom is about to form. For illustrative purposes only; actual results may differ substantially.
The real insight lies in how this overturns old rules of thumb. A decline of -77% to -85% (the accurate benchmark from previous cycles) would place this bottom between $19,000 and $29,000.
But this rule double-counts the impact of a calm top: the historical 75% to 85% extreme declines were based on peaks of extreme euphoria, whereas this peak was moderate and close to the cost basis. Applying the deep decline ratios meant for extreme euphoria to this moderate peak naturally leads to a severely distorted bottom prediction.
In this entire chart, the cost basis is like the tide flowing beneath—it most clearly shows that the floor is movable.
Over the past year, as high-priced buyers in this cycle continuously pushed up the average price, the cost baseline rose from approximately $47,000 to a peak of nearly $56,000 by the end of 2025 (a 20% increase). This upward trend is the fundamental reason why the current bottom is significantly higher than under previous patterns.
However, as some of the 2024 to 2025 holdings were sold at a loss during the decline, the realized price subsequently dropped by approximately 5% to around $53,000.
By the end of 2026, the realized price (i.e., the cost basis) will become a key variable in determining the bottom: a calm, orderly decline will allow it to stabilize, keeping the base case around $45,000; whereas genuine panic will push it lower, dragging down the overall forecast.
Why is it said that the bottom can also move?
The cost basis is reflexive. It appears like a floor, but it is formed by the prices at which the chips last traded. During a genuine sell-off, loss-making handovers of chips lower this average, causing this "floor" not only to fail to support the price but also to decline alongside it.
This is the greatest limitation facing the argument of raising the floor. The buffer is thin: today’s price is only about 14% above the cost basis (MVRV of 1.14), and it has never dipped below it during this cycle.
If a selling round lowers the cost basis by 10%, 20%, or 30%, a typical bottom pattern could drop from around $40,000 to approximately $36,000, $32,000, or $28,000, returning to a normal historical range.
Keep the bottom formation intact and allow the cost basis to decline during the sell-off. The implied floor price will slide back from around $40,000 to approximately $28,000, re-entering the normal historical range (amber). A calm top raises the floor, while genuine panic will reabsorb part of that gain.
The stable, price-insensitive buying pressure from spot ETFs and corporate treasuries, which was absent in previous cycles, tends to raise a higher floor. However, it can both cushion declines and equally amplify them.
The nature of the source of these funds means that Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) companies and corporate treasuries typically buy on rallies rather than catching falling knives; moreover, ETF funds have seen net outflows recently in 2026. In the event of genuine deep selling, fund redemptions may force selling rather than absorbing sell pressure.
During the 2022 cycle, the largest forced selling washout in crypto history resulted in a decline of only −77%. Therefore, the claim that "leverage is lower this time" may not be reliable. (These are merely supporting arguments, not the core pillars of the point.)
A higher floor, along with the risk of it eroding during panic, are two sides of the same mechanism: the cost baseline for this cycle starts higher, but it will also drop if genuine market capitulation occurs. This is precisely why we place greater emphasis on ranges rather than single values.
The data indicates a potential drawdown trend
Our analysis clearly indicates how deep the drawdown will be and how long it will take.
A milder top, which raised the cost basis to 43.7% of its historical high, means that, mechanically, the dollar's decline is milder than in any previous cycle for any given bottom pattern.
We believe that the rule of thumb stating "Bitcoin has historically dropped 75% to 85%, so this cycle will bottom between $19,000 and $29,000" is no longer valid as a literal price floor.
Even if a deep accumulation similar to past events occurs, it now corresponds to a much higher price level. Therefore, even our more severe accumulation scenario is above that region, and our base case sits in the middle of the $40,000 range.
Compared to historical cycle metrics and timing data, the bottom has likely not yet been reached. Only 4 out of 13 bottom indicators have triggered, and the current drawdown has lasted approximately 8 months, whereas historical patterns show bottoms typically occur after 12 to 13 months (especially considering that the cost basis continues to decline).
True accumulation signals include several indicators: price falling below the cost basis, overall holder losses, sustained selling pressure, a decisive break below the four-year moving average, and a bear-market-level sharp decline. If these signals begin to reverse at prices significantly above the previous range, it indicates that the contraction in amplitude between cycle extremes is genuine.
Conversely, if a comprehensive capitulation sell-off occurs as expected, the calm top would only delay, not alleviate, the pain. In either scenario, the arithmetic of cost basis indicates that the starting line for making this judgment is far higher than the level assumed by the old four-year cycle rule.
This is a descriptive study examining how a calm cycle top shapes the arithmetic logic of the cycle bottom, and it is not necessarily a prediction of price direction or price targets. The levels we establish are derived by comparing current retracements against today’s cost basis— itself a moving target—using historical data.
Appendix A: Chart Library
We have compiled a wide range of supplementary charts organized by theme. The first set outlines the framework of the cycle; the second set provides a detailed checklist for identifying complete bottoms. In each indicator chart, the shaded band represents the range reached at the lows of 2015, 2018, and 2022, while the orange marker indicates the latest reading.
Cycle chart
Price and its cycle peaks. Logarithmic scale showing Bitcoin’s complete price history, with the last three cycle peaks marked in red and the October 2025 high marked in orange.
Price and its cycle lows. The same historical period, with reference lows marked: bear market bottoms in 2015, 2018, and 2022 (red), and the COVID-19 crash and mid-2021 pullback (gray).
Cycle clock. The number of days until each peak occurs after the previous low (circle) and halving (square). The October 2025 peak falls precisely within the historical window.
The frenzy arrived early. The cycle's valuation peak occurred in early 2024, around the launch of spot ETFs;随后链上热情消退，价格却又上涨了约70%，直到2025年10月触顶。
The signal that never triggered. The Pi cycle top accurately predicted the peaks of 2013, 2017, and 2021 (asterisks). In this cycle, however, the triggering condition was never met—for the first time ever in any cycle top.
Bottoming Indicator Analysis
MVRV: The ratio of price to the average cost basis of holders. Past bottoms pushed it far below 1.0; the low point in this cycle has stalled at 1.14.
NUPL: The percentage of market capitalization held in unrealized profits. In past bottoms, it dropped below zero (overall loss); today, it remains positive.
MVRV Z-Score. A standardized version of MVRV. Past bottoms recorded deeply negative values; in this cycle, it remains positive.
Mayer Multiple: Price divided by the 200-day moving average. It has dipped into the bottom range, making it the most bottom-like signal among all trend indicators.
Price compared to the four-year moving average. The 200-week moving average has been Bitcoin’s most enduring support—previous bottoms touched or broke below it; now, for the first time in this cycle, the price has fallen below it.
SOPR: The average profit or loss of coins transferred on a given day. In the past, bottoms have kept it below 1.0 for months (indicating sell-offs); in this cycle, it merely brushed below it.
Net realized profit and loss. The daily locked-in profit (+) or loss (−) amount, scaled by market size. The surge in extreme losses signaling an exit, as indicated at the bottom, has not yet occurred.
Puell Multiple. A miner revenue pressure indicator. Historical miner surrender bottom readings ranged from 0.30 to 0.41; the low point of this cycle (approximately 0.44) is close but has not reached that level.
Hash Ribbons. Hash rate momentum. Below 1.0 indicates miners are capitulating; it has remained persistently below this threshold since 2026.
Fear & Greed Index. Our proprietary 0 to 100 sentiment indicator has fallen deeper into fear than the historical average at previous bottoms. This is the only indicator that has definitively triggered.
Appendix B: Glossary
Bitcoin cycle. Bitcoin follows a roughly four-year rhythm, characterized by years of ascent to new all-time highs, sharp declines to lows, and prolonged recoveries. Each cycle typically revolves around the halving event.
Halving. Approximately every four years, the rate at which new bitcoins are produced is cut in half. This is a fixed feature of the protocol and has historically served as an anchor for each cycle.
All-time high (ATH). The highest daily closing price of Bitcoin ever recorded. The ATH for this cycle was $124,824 on October 6, 2025.
Drawdown. The percentage decline from a peak price. A −50% drawdown means the price has fallen by half from its historical high.
Cost basis, also known as realized price, is an estimated average price paid for the bitcoins in circulation. Technically, it is calculated by summing the price of each bitcoin at its last on-chain transfer and dividing by the total number of bitcoins. It is the most critical single anchor in this report, and we also refer to it as the network’s cost basis.
Market capitalization. The total dollar value of all bitcoins in circulation, calculated as the current price multiplied by the number of bitcoins in circulation.
Realized market cap. The total value of all bitcoins calculated based on the price at which each bitcoin was last moved, rather than the current price. The realized price is the realized market cap divided by the number of bitcoins.
MVRV ratio. Market value divided by realized value, also equal to the current price divided by the network's cost basis. Above 1.0, the average bitcoin is in profit; below 1.0, the average is at a loss. It is the central thread running through this report.
MVRV Z-Score: A standardized version of the difference between market value and realized value, making extreme highs and lows across Bitcoin’s vastly different price eras comparable.
NUPL (Net Unrealized Profit/Loss): The proportion of unrealized profit to total market capitalization. A high positive value indicates greed near market tops; values below zero (overall unrealized losses) often accompany desperate selling near market bottoms.
SOPR (Spent Output Profit Ratio): The average profit or loss of coins transferred on a given day. Above 1.0 indicates coins are being sold at a profit; below 1.0 suggests holders are selling at a loss (a potential bottom signal).
Mayer Multiple. Price divided by the 200-day moving average. A simple indicator used to measure the extent to which price deviates from the medium-term trend.
200-day/200-week moving average. The average closing price over the past 200 days (medium-term trend) or 200 weeks (approximately four years, Bitcoin’s most enduring long-term support line).
Puell Multiple. The ratio of the dollar value of newly mined Bitcoin to its one-year average, used to measure miner income pressure (low) or surge (high). Named after ARK Invest analyst David Puell.
Reserve risk. Measures the confidence of long-term holders relative to price. Presented as a ratio and used relatively only in this report.
Pi Cycle top. A timing indicator triggered when the 111-day moving average crosses above twice the 350-day moving average. It accurately predicted the tops in 2013, 2017, and 2021 within days; this cycle has never been triggered.
Hash Ribbons. Compare the 30-day and 60-day average hash rates. When the short-term moving average dips below the long-term moving average, the most expensive miners begin to shut down (surrender); historical recoveries from this crossover have always preceded market bottoms.
Fear & Greed Index. A 0 to 100 sentiment indicator built from on-chain, derivatives, and funding flow data. Low readings indicate extreme fear (near market bottoms), while high readings indicate extreme greed (near market tops).
RSI (Relative Strength Index). A momentum oscillator ranging from 0 to 100; high readings indicate an overbought market, often occurring near tops.
Cycle clock. The number of days elapsed from the cycle's starting low point or from a halving event to the subsequent peak or trough. Historically, Bitcoin's last three peaks occurred approximately 1,060 days after the previous low, while troughs typically emerged 12 to 13 months after each peak.
Reflexivity. This concept, popularized by George Soros in his 1987 book "The Alchemy of Finance," refers to the idea that the standards used for measurement are themselves influenced by price movements. Here, the cost baseline may appear as a floor, but during genuine sell-offs, the turnover of assets at a loss causes this baseline to decline. The floor is a moving target, not a fixed red line.