The Bitcoin bull cycle could bring a total gain of three to five times, according to CryptoQuant founder Ki Young Ju, rather than the tenfold rally he associates with earlier, smaller markets. His Sept. 22 forecast also calls for a milder subsequent bear market. It does not supply a starting price for the calculation, a cycle-top date or a target derived from Bitcoin's current level near $87,000 in the source snapshot. Turning the range into a prediction of $261,000 to $435,000 from today would put numbers into his statement that he did not provide. His thesis is about changing market structure, and it should be judged against that evidence.
Why the Bitcoin bull cycle may look different
Ju argues that a larger Bitcoin market needs much more capital to produce the same percentage gain that a smaller market could achieve with comparatively little buying. Institutional holdings, exchange-traded funds and corporate treasury strategies have also changed the investor base. In his view, a market with more patient capital may see less extreme tops and less severe downturns. That is an interpretation, not a law of market size. Large holders can still sell, and institutions can liquidate positions under pressure.
Bitcoin's market capitalization was near $1.75 trillion in the Sept. 23 snapshot, with the token around $87,100 after a roughly 14% seven-day gain. A short rally does not establish where an entire cycle began or where it ends. The comparison with the early years is directionally intuitive, yet the exact 3-5x outcome cannot be inferred simply by scaling up an old price chart. Liquidity conditions, regulation and risk appetite can overwhelm a historical pattern.
Earlier analysis by Ju compared realized-capital growth and percentage price change across cycles. Realized capitalization values coins at the prices where they last moved, creating a model of the network's aggregate acquisition cost. His argument is that hundreds of billions in growth in this measure now accompany moves that once required far less capital. The measure is useful for comparing holder cost bases, but it is not a literal count of dollars deposited into Bitcoin. Coins can move between holders and prices can change without a one-to-one transfer of new external cash.
MVRV and holder behavior support the thesis, with limits
Ju pointed to the market-value-to-realized-value ratio, or MVRV, staying above one through the current cycle. A reading above one means the market valuation exceeds the realized capitalization under that methodology. In prior deep bear phases, a move below one has signaled that the market traded beneath the estimated aggregate holder cost basis. Remaining above that line may suggest less severe capitulation this time. It does not mean every holder is in profit or that the ratio cannot break below one in a future selloff.
He also cited a profitability indicator becoming less extreme at tops and bottoms, older whales slowing their sales, and large futures traders building long positions near a recent low. Wallet-cohort classification and derivatives-position analysis depend on the provider's methods. A statement that tracked older whales have stopped selling should not be converted into a claim about every long-time holder. Futures longs can support a rebound, but they can also be liquidated if a market reversal strains margin accounts.
Those qualifications are particularly important after Bitcoin fell sharply from a record near $126,000 in October 2025 toward $60,000 during 2026. Institutional participation did not make that decline impossible. The debate over Bitcoin's changing volatility is therefore about degree, not about the disappearance of risk. A market can be less prone to an 80% cycle drawdown and still impose a punishing loss on a buyer near a local peak.
Realized capital is rising, but it is not a price target
Ju says continued growth in realized capitalization indicates incoming capital, even while the price responds less explosively than it did in earlier cycles. A reported weekly increase above $4.6 billion in August offered one snapshot of the trend, though the associated 30-day growth rate was still modest in the analysis cited at the time. Investors should distinguish a durable rise in underlying cost basis from a week of excitement in futures or ETF flows.
U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs provide a visible channel for investment demand, but a single day's inflow does not prove a whole cycle. Corporate treasury purchases are another component with different financing and risk profiles. Some treasuries may buy with cash, while others use equity or debt, and the market can react to that financing as well as to the Bitcoin purchase. The recent list of Bitcoin catalysts makes clear why one analyst's cycle call competes with shorter-term monetary and market events.
Ju has changed his view as indicators changed. Earlier in 2026 he warned that weakness could persist into the next year, while more recent profitability and realized-cap measures improved. Revising a forecast when evidence moves is not a fault; presenting any one forecast as certain would be. His new range should be read as a scenario for the total cycle, with no exact clock attached.
What could falsify a milder-cycle forecast?
A sustained decline in realized capitalization, falling MVRV and a return to broad holder losses would challenge the claim that a deeper cost base makes the market more resilient. Conversely, steady net buying across spot vehicles and long-term wallets, without excessive leverage, would strengthen the argument for a healthier advance. Monitoring the composition of flows matters more than converting 3-5x into a new quote on a chart.
Other macro scenarios differ. Arthur Hayes has argued that an AI bust could affect Bitcoin through liquidity policy, a chain of events that would require its own evidence. Ju's case turns on ownership structure and onchain cost bases. Neither interpretation can guarantee that an investor buys at the right point of the cycle. The next serious test is whether the market keeps absorbing supply when the easy upward momentum fades.
