But I see that so many people seem to be caught up in some kind of mental framework that if the actual high does not happen within the four year fractal.. as scheduled by the pundits, therefore, the odds for the high happening after that same framework has diminished greatly..... or were the odds always not much more than 50/50 anyhow?
Price prediction in a growth phase is a paradox. We are sure that the price is going up in a long enough time. If it is predictable that the price would be up and at X at time T, the smart thing to do would be to buy large amounts at anything <X right now and sell at T for guaranteed profit. That would immediately drive the price to X. The only way this resolves is for the price to be hard to pin down except in generalities. In fact, the tighter you make the analysis, the harder the price is to pin down.
Either Clarke or Asimov wrote a story based around this principle.
In other words, HODL!
There is something wrong with your way of framing the matter because even if we might be able to measure a kind of overall consensus for something like in four years, the BTC price will be higher than it is today, there remains a whole hell of a lot of need for the passage of time.. and also to work it all out because even with consensus there remains a lot of individual variance within that... and the concreteness of individuals needing to act with the passage of time... no way to really lock them in, even if logic and emotions might add up to a kind of proper conclusion about what they should be doing.
Another problem with buying a lot at time T (before the 4 years has passed) is that even though people seem to have natural inclinations to want to gamble, they do not tend to have enough patience to bet on something 4 years in advance and to lump sum into it... that is if they were even capable of such lump summing in the first place.. because one thing is reallocating equity, but another question is whether there is any equity that remains that can reasonably be dedicated for 4 years.... so yeah, people do that for houses all the time, but even with their houses they are not exactly responsible in terms of how they build their equity.. and if they might end up leveraging any bit of equity that they do end up building in such asset.
DCA continues to seem to be a powerful way to even bet 4 years out, so long as the level of aggressiveness is not greater than assuring that other foreseeable and somewhat unforeseeable matters are covered for that time period....
For example, even though you are likely going to be better off by employing a $100 per week (or even more aggressive) BTC DCA strategy, you are also going to get fucked, if you have not sufficiently budgeted your expenses that you might end up having to dig into such BTC investment as if it were some kind of short term emergency fund or savings that is not adequately small enough that you are not going to be tempted to dip into it... so in that regard, you gotta really have your shit together so that you are ongoingly buying BTC.. and not dipping into it in order to get to a sufficiently high level that you are actually able to build principle with the passage of time.. rather just spinning your wheels in place and barely getting anywhere because from time to time you need to dip into such reserves because you do not have the rest of your finances/psychology in order.
There's a real life concrete reality that people have to deal with, and that is part of the reason also why the efficient market hypothesis is full of shit because even though in theory it may well seem like a known quantity (such as the halvening) should already establish the BTC price in advance because it is so damned fixed and known in advance, but part of the fact of the matter remains that their are relevant actors who have not fucking clue about what bitcoin is and they are going to be acting on their own in the future to actually help to create the BTC price dynamics in T+4 years, so even if others are speculating on their behalf and bidding the price up on their behalf and even hoarding their share based on expecting what they are going to do in T+4 years, it still matters what they actually do in T+4 years rather than just theorizing about it.
Many of us have not always known (or had high confidence), but several of us long-termers in bitcoin are coming to realize (and we might not even be completely convinced) that Saylor is correct in terms of the benefits of buying as much as you can and continuing to do so.. but even if the longer term bitcoiners know that, ongoingly there are new actors into bitcoin that either do not know that or believe that or they actually cannot discipline themselves well enough to actually have a plan that allow them to continue to buy no matter what the BTC price... so many folks want to be smarter than the market.. even if they have decently strong consensus that T+4 years the BTC price will be higher than today, but in the meantime, they are considering either that there strategy is going to allow them to accumulate more coins between now and T+4 years or that they really feel that they need to reward themselves along the way.. because T+4 years never really comes, because even if we get to T+2 years, the new T+4 years ends up being T+2+4(6) years because we have to account for the passage of time, and act based on where we are at any given moment and we cannot just transport ourselves from T to T+4 years without actually going through the process and sticking with some meaningful variation of our original plan (whether accumulate through DCA, or HODL or some variation of complementary practices that might also involve lump sum investing and buying on dips.. without getting too smart for our own good and lose what should be our ongoing BTC accumulating focus (if that's the stage that we are in at time T?)).