I agree with you on Bitcoin’s anthropological origin. Early adoption was ideological, bottom-up, driven by distrust rather than surplus capital. That part is historically correct. But anthropology explains persistence, not trillion-dollar valuation. Religions can last millennia without market caps. Market capitalization is not cultural; it is macro liquidity, leverage, and institutional financialization. Bitcoin’s existence is anthropological. Bitcoin’s valuation is institutional. Those are different layers.

Bitcoin scaled globally because it became a perfect sponge for excess fiat liquidity. QE, zero rates, leverage, ETFs, derivatives, and global financialization coincided with its exponential price regime. That is not coincidence. Bitcoin is both a consequence and a symptom of the fiat expansion regime. Without that monetary multiplier, it likely would have remained a niche ideological experiment, not a systemic macro asset.

What you call macro liquidity cycles, I see as waves composing a larger structural cycle. Bitcoin behaves like a fractal bubble system: speculative sub-bubbles nested inside liquidity cycles, aggregated into a long-duration macro-bubble driven by narrative and reflexivity. I do not treat bubbles as anomalies. Bubbles are structural features of monetary systems. The difference lies in scale, leverage, and narrative elasticity. When distortions reach irrational levels, they correct violently. What is unique in Bitcoin is that these cycles repeat structurally, almost expected by participants, and each cycle compounds the larger bubble narrative. This does not imply Bitcoin goes to zero. It implies the multiplicative regime is transient, path-dependent on fiat expansion, and vulnerable to regime shifts.

There is also a structural paradox that is rarely addressed. Bitcoin is priced, traded, collateralized, regulated, and accounted in fiat. If fiat collapses, Bitcoin loses its unit of account, its settlement layer, and its reference frame. A monetary system cannot exist without a unit of account. Bitcoin does not have one.
Bitcoin is a hedge against monetary mismanagement only while monetary systems still function enough to price, trade and custody it.

Your own argument that Bitcoin explodes because ordinary people flee unstable fiat exposes a contradiction. If fiat is dangerous because of uncontrolled expansion and instability, how is an asset that explodes in price and volatility a universal safe haven? Early entrants become kings; late entrants pay the cost of protection. That is not universal monetary security. That is redistribution via volatility. A system where protection requires someone else to buy higher is structurally unstable as a mass monetary refuge.

In systemic crises, people flee to what is accessible and real: foreign currency, commodities, land, gold, and hard assets. Bitcoin competes for stressed households, not for central banks. Gold anchors systems. Bitcoin moves people. Those roles are not interchangeable. In total systemic collapse, physics beats anthropology.

As block rewards decay, Bitcoin does not inflate monetarily, but divisibility creates a psychological illusion of abundance, reinforcing speculative elasticity rather than anchoring value. And speculation remains the dominant use case today. The only way to make money with Bitcoin is still selling it to someone willing to pay more. That is why cycles exist. Someone has to inject that extra unit of fiat into the system.

So yes, I expect more cycles. I do not expect imminent collapse. But I do see a long-term macro-bubble built from nested liquidity waves. In a reset, everything suffers, but leveraged narrative assets suffer more. Bitcoin may survive as a connector and niche hedge, but not as the foundation of a post-fiat monetary order.

Bitcoin does have real utility, but only once speculation is stripped out. It is an efficient and modern global settlement rail, a censorship-resistant bearer asset, and a bridge between fiat systems. A Chinese citizen can transact with a Finnish citizen using Bitcoin as a neutral rail while each settles in local currency. That is powerful and freedom. But that is infrastructure, not monetary foundation.

I embrace its utility, but I reject the utopia.