An Empirical Examination of Bitcoin’s Halving Effects: Assessing Cryptocurrency Sustainability within the Landscape of Financial Technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the significance of Bitcoin halving events within the cryptocurrency ecosystem and their impact on market dynamics. While the existing literature addresses the periods before and after Bitcoin halving, as well as financial bubbles, there is an absence of forecasting regarding Bitcoin price in the time after halving. To address this gap and provide predictions of Bitcoin price development, we conducted a rigorous analysis of past halving events in 2012, 2016, and 2020, focusing on Bitcoin price behaviour before and after each occurrence. What interests us is not only the change in the price level of Bitcoins (top and bottom), but also when this turn occurs. Through synthesizing data and trends from previous events, this article aims to uncover patterns and insights that illuminate the impact of Bitcoin halving on market dynamics and sustainability, movement of the price level, the peaks reached, and price troughs. Our approach involved employing methods such as RSI, MACD, and regression analysis. We looked for the relationship between the price of Bitcoin (top and bottom) and the number of days after the halving. We have uncovered a mathematical model, according to which the next peak will be reached 19 months (in November 2025) and the trough 31 months after Bitcoin halving 2024 (in November 2026). Looking towards the future, this study estimates predictions and expectations for the upcoming Bitcoin halving. These discoveries significantly enhance our understanding of Bitcoin’s trajectory and its implications for the finance cryptocurrency market. By offering novel insights into cryptocurrency market dynamics, this study contributes to advancing knowledge in the field and provides valuable information for cryptocurrency markets, investors, and stakeholders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".