Tickfloor

Bitcoin Halving Cycle: does it work?

None of these versions passed. Sample: 39 completed trades over 2017-08-18 to 2025-03-14 (7.6 years).

Each Bitcoin halving has been followed by a big run, so many people treat the cycle as a repeatable buy signal.

The rule we tested. Hold every crypto in the test for 18 months after each of the halvings on 2016-07-09, 2020-05-11 and 2024-04-20, flat otherwise.

See a full worked example of one of these reads (free, no account)

Receipt: parameters, data, window and result file
Run id
t100-halving-c, run 2026-10-06
Frozen parameters
timeframe 1d; starts=[1468022400,1589155200,1713571200], days=548
Data source
vendor not recorded in the result file; data fingerprint sha256 e7098c5c15a8401c...
Instruments and coverage
18 assets: BTCUSDT, BNBUSDT, XRPUSDT, ADAUSDT, DOGEUSDT, LTCUSDT, LINKUSDT, TRXUSDT, BCHUSDT, ATOMUSDT, ETCUSDT, DASHUSDT and 6 more (full list in the result file)
Date window
2017-08-18 to 2025-03-14 (discovery cutoff 2025-03-15)
Sample
39 completed trades over 2017-08-18 to 2025-03-14 (7.6 years)
Cost rule
0.10% to 0.17% per side; charged on every change in position/weight; benchmark pays none; no funding/borrow on shorts
Fill rule
not recorded
Benchmark
equal-weight long of the same assets, rebalanced daily across assets trading that day (no costs)
Rule source (public)
not published yet
Run record (public)
research/hunt2/ledger.jsonl, line with id t100-halving-c
Full result file
not published yet

None of these versions passed. crypto pairs +35.9 pts/yr vs the benchmark (unadjusted p=0.188, BH-adjusted q=1.000). None cleared our Benjamini-Hochberg q<0.10 bar once counted alongside every other rule we tested. That covers the versions, costs and benchmark described here, not every version of the rule. These are historical diagnostics, not validation under Testing Standard v2: the backtest harness predates that standard and has not been re-run to meet it.

Failed: only the tested version above. Not tested: Other hold lengths; Bitcoin alone; future halvings, which are outside the data. A result for the tested version says nothing about these.

This is one line in a bigger check. The research desk has run 694 strategies, most against an equal-weight benchmark of the same assets rebalanced daily that pays no costs (the strategies pay theirs). After correcting for how many we tried (Benjamini-Hochberg, 777 tests), 0 passed. That does not prove no strategy works, and it says nothing about versions we did not test. These are historical diagnostics, not validation under Testing Standard v2: the backtest harness predates that standard and has not been re-run to meet it.

General information only. It doesn't consider your objectives, finances or needs. Tickfloor holds no financial services licence and never places trades.

Short answers: the verdict and the rule, as questions

Does the Bitcoin halving cycle work as a strategy?

None of these versions passed. crypto pairs +35.9 pts/yr vs the benchmark (unadjusted p=0.188, BH-adjusted q=1.000). None cleared our Benjamini-Hochberg q<0.10 bar once counted alongside every other rule we tested. That covers the versions, costs and benchmark described here, not every version of the rule. These are historical diagnostics, not validation under Testing Standard v2: the backtest harness predates that standard and has not been re-run to meet it.

What exact rule did Tickfloor test?

Hold every crypto in the test for 18 months after each of the halvings on 2016-07-09, 2020-05-11 and 2024-04-20, flat otherwise.

Why is a big positive number not a pass?

With only three halvings the sample is tiny, so a result this size cannot be told apart from luck. Three cycles is not enough to separate a pattern from chance.

Is this financial advice?

No. This measures a publicly claimed strategy rule, not a recommendation. General information only, not personal advice.

See the full numbers on the Top 100 retail strategies family page, or the full method and every result.

Other rules we've tested

All the rules we tested