As the Bitcoin market steps into 2025, investors are keenly analyzing seasonal trends and historical data to predict what February might hold. With Bitcoin’s cyclical nature often tied to its halving events, historical insights provide a valuable roadmap for navigating future performance. By examining historical data—including Bitcoin’s average monthly returns and its post-halving February performance—we aim to provide a clear picture of what February 2025 might look like.

Understanding Bitcoin’s Seasonality

The first chart, “Bitcoin Seasonality,” highlights average monthly returns from 2010 to the latest monthly close. The data underscores Bitcoin’s best-performing months and its cyclical tendencies. February has historically shown an average return of 13.62%, ranking it as one of the stronger months for Bitcoin performance.

Notably, November stands out with the highest average return at 43.74%, followed by October at 19.46%. Conversely, September has historically been the weakest month with an average return of -1.83%. February’s solid average places it in the upper tier of Bitcoin’s seasonality, offering investors hope for positive returns in early 2025.

Historical Performance of February in Post-Halving Years

A deeper dive into Bitcoin’s historical February returns reveals fascinating insights for years that follow a halving event. Bitcoin’s halving mechanism—which occurs roughly every four years—reduces block rewards by half, creating a supply shock that has historically driven price increases. February’s performance in these post-halving years has consistently been positive:

• 2013 (Post-2012 Halving): 62.71%
• 2017 (Post-2016 Halving): 22.71%
• 2021 (Post-2020 Halving): 36.80%

The average return across these three years is an impressive 40.74%. Each of these Februarys reflects the bullish momentum that often follows halving events, driven by reduced Bitcoin supply issuance and increased market demand.

Related: We’re Repeating The 2017 Bitcoin Bull Cycle

January 2025’s Performance Sets the Stage

While February 2025 is yet to unfold, the year began with a modest 7.28% return to date in January, as shown in the “Monthly Returns Heatmap.” January’s positive performance hints at a continuation of bullish sentiment in the early months of 2025, aligning with historical post-halving patterns. If February 2025 follows the trajectory of past post-halving years, it could see returns in the range of 22% to 63%, with an average expectation around 40%.

What Drives February’s Strong Post-Halving Performance?

Several factors contribute to February’s historical strength in post-halving years:

1. Supply Shock: The halving reduces new Bitcoin supply entering circulation, increasing scarcity and driving price appreciation.
2. Market Momentum: Investors often respond to the halving event with increased enthusiasm, pushing prices higher in the months following the event.
3. Institutional Interest: In recent cycles, institutional adoption has accelerated post-halving, adding significant capital inflows to the market.

Key Takeaways for February 2025

Investors should approach February 2025 with cautious optimism. Historical and seasonal data suggest the month has strong potential for positive returns, particularly in the context of Bitcoin’s post-halving cycles. With an average return of 40.74% in past post-halving Februarys, investors might expect similar performance this year, barring any significant macroeconomic or regulatory headwinds.

Conclusion

Bitcoin’s history provides a valuable lens through which to view its future performance. February 2025 is shaping up to be another positive month, driven by the same post-halving dynamics that have historically fueled impressive gains. Combining historical data performance with a positive regulatory environment, the incoming pro-Bitcoin administration, and the news that The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has issued a new guideline (ASU 2023-08) fundamentally changing how Bitcoin is accounted for (Why Hundreds of Companies Will Buy Bitcoin in 2025), 2025 is shaping up to be a transformative year for Bitcoin. As always, investors should combine these insights with broader market analysis and remain prepared for Bitcoin’s inherent volatility.

Related: Why Hundreds of Companies Will Buy Bitcoin in 2025

By leveraging the lessons of history and the patterns of seasonality, Bitcoin investors can make informed decisions as the market navigates this pivotal year.

To explore live data and stay informed on the latest analysis, visit bitcoinmagazinepro.com.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Always do your own research before making any investment decisions.

​ Discover how Bitcoin’s historical February performance and post-halving trends provide insights into what investors can expect in 2025. 

Earlier today, Coinbase announced the launch of “Bitcoin-Backed Loans” using Base, its native blockchain. But there’s one problem. (Actually, two.)

These loans are not backed by Bitcoin, nor are they even on the Bitcoin blockchain.

It’s disappointing that, in 2025, companies are still willingly omitting key details to mislead Bitcoin holders into giving up custody of their coins.

Here’s the truth: these loans are collateralized by cbBTC, Coinbase’s Bitcoin-wrapped product designed to compete with wBTC and tBTC. This is not Bitcoin. In fact, cbBTC is arguably the most centralized of these “wrapped” BTC tokens. To understand the trust assumptions associated with wrapped BTC, I recommend this excellent post by the Bitcoin Layers team: Analyzing tBTC Against wBTC and cbBTC.

Here’s the TL;DR:

“The BTC backing the cbBTC token is held in reserve wallets managed by Coinbase, a US-based centralized custodial provider. Coinbase holds funds backing cbBTC in cold storage wallets across a number of geographically distributed locations and additionally has insurance on funds they custody.”

Furthermore, instead of issuing these loans on a blockchain even remotely related to Bitcoin (such as Bitcoin sidechains or Bitcoin L2s), Coinbase is issuing them through Morpho Labs, a DeFi platform best described as an AAVE competitor. While Morpho is a well-established platform—and I don’t doubt its security—it has no connection to Bitcoin.

I, for one, look forward to seeing actual Bitcoin-backed loans issued on the Bitcoin network itself. Many L2 teams are working hard to make this a reality, striving to minimize trust assumptions—or even eliminate the need for bridging altogether (bullish!).

Why do we need native Bitcoin-backed loans in the first place? Consider this: many Bitcoiners today face stringent tax regulations that impose hefty liabilities on long-term holders who sell their Bitcoin to fund significant purchases like a house or a car. Taking out a loan backed by BTC allows individuals to avoid triggering these tax events.

Moreover, most Bitcoiners are confident that Bitcoin’s price will be significantly higher in the future than it is today. So why would anyone sell an asset with such promising long-term potential? Bitcoin-backed loans enable holders to retain exposure to Bitcoin’s upside while accessing the liquidity needed to meet life’s financial demands.

In today’s market, the options for Bitcoin-backed lending are limited. You can either rely on centralized companies (like the reputable team at Unchained) or turn to “DeFi” protocols, which are often centralized themselves and, in some cases, riskier than centralized alternatives like Unchained. However, there is currently no truly Bitcoin-native solution—no option for Bitcoiners to maintain custody of their coins while accessing loans.

Some companies, like Lava.xyz, are beginning to address this gap. However, their market share remains a small fraction of the volumes handled by existing DeFi platforms. (Keep an eye on Lava—they’re poised to make waves in 2025!)

One quote from the original announcement stood out to me:

“The integration of Bitcoin-backed loans on Coinbase is ‘TradFi in the front, DeFi in the back,’” said Max Branzburg, Coinbase’s vice president of product, in a statement to The Block.

Let’s call it what it really is: centralized in the front, and centralized in the back.

It’s time to leave these misleading offerings behind and bring true Bitcoin Finance (BTCfi) to users—not just marketing buzzwords and half-truths.

Instead of saying: Bitcoin backed on-chain loans let’s say: multisig-backed derivatives loans on a centralized chain.

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

Articles I write may discuss topics or companies that are part of my firm’s investment portfolio (UTXO Management). The views expressed are solely my own and do not represent the opinions of my employer or its affiliates. I’m receiving no financial compensation for these takes. Readers should not consider this content as financial advice or an endorsement of any particular company or investment. Always do your own research before making financial decisions.

​ Not backed by real Bitcoin – not on the Bitcoin blockchain. We can do better. 

Some miners at OCEAN have started making use of the Coin Age Priority algorithm during block template construction using DATUM. Originally, Bitcoin Core originally selected transactions to include in blocks based on what they had seen first in their mempool. This logic was eventually replaced by prioritizing older coins, i.e. that had been sitting around unspent longer, over other coins. This was eventually only applied to a small portion of the blockspace, and then eventually done away with entirely around the time of Segwit. It’s still maintained in Bitcoin Knots.

I can only speculate as to the motives of the miners doing this, but given OCEAN’s rhetoric I can guess that it has something to do with prioritizing “financial” transactions over others. Even if not, even if it is purely to help small value UTXO owners, it is still every bit as irrational.

You can partition blockspace as a miner however you want, and prioritize ordering of transactions however you wish within those partitions, but it does not change the fact that blockspace is a fungible good being valued on an open market. If criteria other than the feerate are used to decide which transactions to include, you will leave money on the table. The only situation where that would not be true is one where those criteria were 1:1 identical to deciding based on feerate, which would be a meaningless criteria.

Creating a subsection of blockspace selected for by other criteria ultimately accomplishes two things: 1) leaving money on the table as a miner, as definitionally any meaningful non-feerate criteria results in collecting less fees, and 2) create a bucket of blockspace submitted to competitive “fee” pressures according to whatever different criteria is used, without any of that pressure creating direct revenue increases for miners using this new criteria.

The new subsection of blockspace doesn’t ultimately reduce fee pressure, it simply leaves them making less money and users taking advantage of this new transaction selection criteria subjected to different competitive pressures miners do not directly benefit from.

You can’t hide from the reality that blockspace is a fungible good priced on the open market. You can accept that, or you can lose money. The only alternative is to futilely try to censor classes of transactions you don’t like, and if you happen to succeed, you destroy a core property of Bitcoin in the process.

Mining staying decentralized, widely distributed with many small operators, is critical for Bitcoin’s censorship resistance. It’s a shame to see signs like this of such smaller miners being economically irrational, given that it has huge implications for their success long term.

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

​ Bitcoin’s censorship resistance depends not only on miners’ decentralization, but their economic rationality, and therefore sustainability.