Demand fell short of expectations
Lyn Alden, a macro analyst, recently explained why Bitcoin’s latest market cycle didn’t reach some of the higher price targets people were talking about. She thinks the main issue was demand—or rather, the lack of it.
When you look at where the price peaked, around $126,000, it’s clear something was holding it back. Alden suggests that if demand had been stronger, we might have seen prices push toward $150,000 or even $200,000. But the buying pressure just wasn’t there in the same way it has been in previous cycles.
I think this makes sense when you consider all the different types of investors involved. There’s retail buying directly, ETF investors, and institutions getting exposure through various funds. When all these groups are active, they can absorb selling from other sources. But this time, the overall demand growth seems to have been more modest.
The OG selling pattern continues
Another factor Alden points to is what she calls “routine OG selling.” These are early Bitcoin holders—people who bought years ago at much lower prices. As Bitcoin’s price rises and becomes a larger part of their wealth, some naturally decide to take profits.
This isn’t anything new or unusual. In fact, Alden emphasizes that this has happened in every major Bitcoin bull market. Early holders selling into strength is just part of the market’s natural rhythm. They might sell to diversify into real estate, stocks, or other assets.
What’s interesting is that despite some narratives suggesting long-term holders have been unusually active sellers, Alden says the data doesn’t support that view. On-chain metrics show that the percentage of coins that haven’t moved in five years or more is actually near historical highs.
Looking at the bigger picture
So we have two main forces at play here: weaker-than-expected demand growth, and the normal selling pressure from early adopters. When you combine these, you get a price ceiling that’s lower than some optimistic projections.
Alden’s analysis suggests that these cycles aren’t mysterious or unpredictable. They follow patterns that make sense when you examine the underlying dynamics. Demand needs to outpace selling for prices to rise significantly, and this time, that equation didn’t balance out in favor of higher prices.
Perhaps the most important takeaway is that Bitcoin markets still operate according to basic economic principles. Supply and demand matter. Investor behavior follows recognizable patterns. And while each cycle has its unique characteristics, some things remain consistent across time.
This doesn’t mean Bitcoin’s story is over or anything dramatic like that. It just means that market cycles have natural limits based on real-world factors. Understanding those factors might help investors set more realistic expectations for future cycles.
Of course, this is just one analyst’s perspective. Markets are complex, and multiple factors influence price movements. But Alden’s focus on demand fundamentals and routine selling patterns provides a useful framework for thinking about how these cycles actually work.
