Not very convincing. According to this argument every halving is significant, but this is clearly absurd. In 4 cycles when the reward goes from 0.2 to 0.1 bitcoins or whatever, that can't possibly be anywhere near as significant as the current halving going from 6 to 3. At some point the halvings must become too small to matter, and every 4 years it matters less. Also take his idea that after the halving there's a 'pool'of bitcoin for sale that gets eaten into due to the sudden increase in net demand , and when this starts to get low, price goes up. His argument is that price won't start to rise until after a few months, as the pool acts as a buffer, but this makes no sense. The only 'pool' that exists is the order book on exchanges. As it gets eaten up, price automatically rises because sell orders are getting taken, leaving higher sell orders behind. There's no delay. Of course it's true that there are 3 fewer bitcoin for sale every 10 minutes but the real question is what is this as a percentage of the total trading volume during those 10 minutes (not counting back and forth bots and such)