OP, you referenced a prediction from someone very specific, yet the article you linked to doesn't include that prediction at all. It'd be so much better if you would provide a link to things you're referencing.
Anyway, two statements from the article caught my skeptical eye:
The 2016 halving doubled the price of Bitcoin $400 to than $800.
For traders, they can expect extreme volatility before and after.
I would not conclude that the halving was responsible for the doubling of the price, or at least if I was writing an article to be read by who knows how many people, I wouldn't be so confident in that conclusion. For all we know, that could have been a coincidence.
Second, there's no reason to expect any more volatility around the halving than what's typical with bitcoin anyway. That's another conclusion I wouldn't be so confident in that I'd put it in writing and sign my name to it.
This is exactly why I hate reading crypto news articles. At least with the mainstream media you know you're reading something from legitimate journalists. In crypto news websites, who the F knows what kind of qualifications the writers have?
Edit: Oh yeah, and is it possible to have an article about bitcoin that
doesn't include a huge picture of a gold coin with the
BTC symbol on it? It's getting really fucking old.