Bitcoin Forum

Can bitcoin marketcap get to 200 trillion? Expecting the price to be around $10 million at the time.

https://www.reddit.com/r/StockMarket/comments/1111f9w/bitcoin_could_hit_10m_in_9_years_but_more/

Bitcoin was less than $1 before when it was created, the price increased multiple times and now at $21800. If anyone told me that time that bitcoin price will get to $20000, I will not believe.

As the price of bitcoin is increasing, the more money pumped can not make its price increase up to when the marketcap was low, this is the reason altcoins with low marketcap but with low money pumped into it had more effect on the price. This makes me think this time again that can bitcoin get to 10 million in 9 years to come?

I look at the history of gold marketcap which is the highest among all assets, I was surprised about how significantly it has been increasing, but gold marketcap as of today is still $12.344 trillion. This makes me think bitcoin marketcap can not get to $200 trillion in just 9 years to come, but I know bitcoin may get to $5 trillion market cap as it gets to 1 trillion in the last all-time-high. I am not expecting the price to be that more than $1 million or less.

Same thought. For bitcoin to defeat gold in terms of marketcap, I'm pretty sure money should be in people from the current generation's pockets as people in the current technology-filled generation are highly more likely to buy BTC, not the boomers.

bitcoins bottom line value was about $15k in 2022 (based on most efficient mining(acquisition method) on the planet causing a non zero bottom (no one wants to sell at a loss below worlds lowest acquisition cost
and was about $99k max range of possibility based on most expensive on planet for same time period

so imagine mining stayed at the same $15k per btc (240exahsah at $0.04 per kwh)

now: ($15k/btc)
2024: halvening  ($30k/btc)
2028: halvening ($60k/btc <-non zero bottom limit)
2029=same

now lets say no new efficient upgrades of hardware, no electric hikes. but where there was a change per year of hashrate was +50%
(last year was 26 diff to 39diff )(26 X 1.5x=39)

using excel for range of possibility for market per 1btc
          hashrate  min             max
2022   240exa   $14,994       $99,474
2023   360exa   $22,491       $149,211
2024   540exa   $33,737       $223,817
2024   540exa   $67,474       $447,634 half coin
2025   810exa   $101,211     $671,451
2026   1215 ex  $151,817     $1,007,177
2027   1822 ex  $227,726     $1,510,766
2028   2734 ex  $341,589     $2,266,149
2028   2734 ex  $683,177     $4,532,297 half coin
2029   4101 ex  $1,024,766  $6,798,446

note this is if there was no efficiency gain of hardware and no higher electric cost
so ill leave you to factor in asic gains and electric  losses that can also change the min max regions of possibility

i might post later an update with more details included
but have fun with the possible realms of trade window.. (these are no expectations of price per year , just a possible window the market moves within

I think the title is exaggerated.  No matter how many sidechain is created on Bitcoin, it won't reach that price in just a matter of 9 years.  I am always open to the possibilities but we should also look at the target timeframe.  In 9 years time, I doubt Bitcoin will be adopted by develop countries because Bitcoin has a feature that is the main issue why majority of the countries are not accepting it as legal tender. 

It is the decentralization that prevents government to control it completely.  I would say $1M  bitcoin is still vague to happen even after 9 years what more $10m.

Another speculation that serves no other purpose than to provide a little publicity to the person who made it public - with the difference that he wants to be someone who will be talked about more than Cathie Wood, who recently stated that by 2030 one BTC will be worth between $250k and $1.5 million. Personally, I think that the price of $10 million for 1 BTC is excessive, regardless of how many sidechains have existed and what will happen in the next 10 years.

The only thing that would lead to such a strong increase in prices would be the decision of the most powerful countries in the world to start buying Bitcoin, and I don't think something like that is likely, especially in countries like the US, UK, EU, India, China or Japan. Of course, maybe a few more countries will follow the example of El Salvador, but globally this has little or almost no impact on the price.

Honestly, this is not impossible because if we keep pushing forward terms of adoptions and implementations for the next years to come, then surely bitcoins price will spike up to the point we never expected it to be. Just like its old price where it didn't even reach a hundred dollars per BTC, we will gonna witness progress in the future if we don't have such cases like the FTX and we finally move on from that. In that case, I see the other people that are hostile against bitcoins will finally be outnumbered and their opinions will not really matter anymore for the majority of the people.

the reason why they say the price is possible is:
because my math of just 50% hashrate rises per year are reasonable amounts not extremes
so the possibility is maybe with other factors(10% efficiency per year)
~$800k-$5m without extremes

the reason said about sidechains by blockstream(obvious common sense):
a. blockstream ceo does not make money from people moving coin p2p on the bitcoin network
b. he owns liquid and also has major stake in (core-lightning) which he can if his employees and his businesses are the federations and payment routers/hubs respectively he can make profits on fees their subnetworks
c thats the whole game going on.. its why blockstream employees, sponsored influncers, fans, affiliates,  were pushing to get everyone over to subnetworks while hyping up things that restrict and expense BITCOIN utility)

b. also if 1btc was $10m then 10sat would be $1
(1btc=100000000sat
 1btc=$10000000
10sat=$1)
meaning onchain fees of lean tx 250bytes(1sat per byte) 250sats =$25 which no one wants to pay as a minimum fee(1sat/byte) to make payments

so he thinks people will want/need to use sidechains (locked to only function and service bitcoin as a sole bitcoin feature network(no cross boarder)
would be the only way to offer people "cheap fees"

Even more, the point of that speculation pretty much was that Bitcoin needs more side chains (which may be counted also as a biased conclusion), not the yet-another-very-high-price-in-the-future...

Bitcoin can do this on its own.  No side chains necessary for it.  Please keep in mind that money is changing.  And its value too, pretty quickly in fact.  And then there are Coins that are being lost forever.

Is any body even really using the existing Bitcoin side chains?  I experimented with them a while ago and they seem less interesting even than Shit coins do.  Bitcoin should in my view pretty much only be mostly used as it is.  The default coin.  By implementing side chains, we risk inserting vector attacks on Bitcoin too.  Not necessarily an attack on the Bitcoin infrastructure, but on its trust and market.  Because if we get side chains that end up being brutally attacked like we have recently seen LUNA, then Bitcoin will directly be affected by it.

So why bother even trying to do this just for a price increase when we already know Bitcoin can do it all by itself.  I mean it had the most incredible price increase of all Coins that ever existed.  It will continue to do wonders in the future as well.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

Luckily, a bitcoin reached below 1$, I'm sure all the buyers who held bitcoin for a long time are now rich.

    Now, I can't understand clearly how you calculated that it will be 10M$ each bitcoin after 9 years. Maybe it's too good to be true, of course. No one knows how much bitcoin will be worth in the future even though it is volatile.

Bitcoin market can get higher at any point, because no specific time that's been enshrined for speed increment of Bitcoin the way i see things. The possibilities is there for Bitcoin to reach up to one million dollars in nine years intervals. Everything about the market is dependable on the market. So i believe that Bitcoin have to do gravities of demands in annual, and when you cross check Bitcoin market you will notice that the market always get increase every year. So it's believable that the market can get to $1m before the stipulated year if possible.

By these measures, all Satoshi has to do is to sit and wait 9 more years to own 10 trillion $ worth of bitcoin? Don't mind the inflation rate globally, This means that I could have 1M $ by then if I hold 0.1BTC. What am I waiting for?🤑

One of the things we need to get familiar with about a decentralized network like bitcoin is the fact that it is very volatile, the price can change anytime, if we can look into the history of time from its inception since 2009, bitcoin has been very volatile rising and falling and despite that the value has always been found increasing along side, all hope is not dashed out about believing if in few years time bitcoin can arrived at this milestone, remember when we are talking about bullrun, if takes speed within a short time frame to rise sporadically in price, who knows maybe after this $68k ATH we are heading towards $200k or beyond and so continuously with every four years after or before halving, we can continue to having something big in pushing the price to ATH till we are close to the said rate as thought by OP.

No doubt that bitcoin can grow exponentially and but giving timeframes is already off the radar. We'll just see it then if it happens.

I cannot imagine how much the inflation rate would that be by that time when bitcoin is up to that price. We can't remove that fact that as the price increases for bitcoin, there goes the other factors that will certainly have its own move just as how it moves as well.

That's what they do. Every single tweet by a known individual in the community or by those ceo's that are giving their insights and opinions, they're putting it as a content and making it interesting as a headline.

If we are talking about the exponential growth of Bitcoin, it become smaller and smaller as the price of Bitcoin goes up.  Just look at the discrepancy of growth of each all time high, meaning every 4 year Bitcoin ATH % growth gain will be smaller than the previous ATH growth gain.  So following the % of growth gain every 4 years of ATH, it will fall short in calculation.  I don't even think that Bitcoin will reach $3m in the next two halving.  and the 9th year will be on 2032 which is one year short for the next record breaking ATH event where new ATH is always happen after 1 year (2033) of Bitcoin halving.

I agree. Bitcoin itself is enough to revolutionize money. Sidechains are just increasing its efficiency at best, though with good enough scaling upgrades then what's the point other than more niche/private purposes for them? Sidechains aside, the fall of a global reserve currency and a race to take its place (presumably lead by Bitcoin) can lead to this kind of meteoric rise quite easily under the right circumstances. The only variable that might put a speed bump in the process, is war. I don't think people factor this (likely) variable into the equation while making predictions like this.

200 Trillion market cap, i would say that's impossible, Look at the market cap, is close to 1T. and has been really hard for It to get until that point, and the max has been 2T. So, 200 trillion is just impossible from my point of view, even if big companies like Mac or Tesla decide to sell all their shares and invest in BTC the goal will not be even close. I just can't imagine where all that money will come from.

That infrastructure improves is a given, but all those improvements won't mean much if we don't also maintain trajectory for utility (and that's to me without custodial services) as well as fundamentals securing the network (hashrate for sure, but probably also node numbers and diversity). Of course it has to be more complex than that but I tend to see these as more important.

We already have L1 and LN networks. Why we need anymore?

Because a person has to build his story around something, and what is better than some new solutions that would enable billions of new users to use Bitcoin every day, as if this is impossible today with the technology we already have. It's not that I'm against development, but I don't think it's necessary to invent something new in that direction in order to increase the demand for Bitcoin - because let's be honest, what percentage of people today bought it because it's something new, innovative and technologically advanced?

---

When I just remember how much effort was needed to eliminate those who were paid to shill their link, and we are still bombarded with low-value news from that source. Kudos to the OP though for bypassing the direct link.

I'll also agree that $10M by 2031 is very romantic.

Not many, but more than a few years ago. People who gamble with it, end up selling it to those who don't.

Sidechains can help in sustainability on the long-term, and probably in scaling as well. I don't argue we need them, but if there might be a need.

current side-subnetworks are not the best,, by a long shot, in many many ways not. thats why not many are using them after 7 years of the waiting for promises to flourish

im not saying saying side/subnetworks as a concept are useless.. but the current options dont meet their promises nor have the security policies needed for people to want to trust them

new side and subnetworks will come about offering different niche use cases in the future. but thinking we should wait around for a few years on current side/sub networks dreams and hopes wont help

for now bitcoin devs should work on hardening bitcoin consensus (network security)
because things are going backwards (softrules causing less tx count and more expense)

and then expand utility for funky features for other networks

---

one major flaw of both side and sub networks both beginning with L
by processing payments via "federated managers" or "routers"
those entities are classing themselves as fiduciaries(money service businesses)
offering the management and handling of payments for a third party for a fee

(google:"expensive licence and regulatory compliance please because im a fiduciary")
and enjoy the hole you dug yourselves into legally
..
so yea sidechains and subnetworks that are not silly schemes like that will come about in the future to escape things like regulations.. but just not those ones

It could be changed if we don't compare it with fiat or dollar USD.

I don't know why bitcoin has a price?. the white paper said, bitcoin is currency which mean don't have price and stand alone.

I just dream in the future people might compare bitcoin with goods. example: tesla car price BTC0.01, iPhone BTC0.01, etc.
today all people think bitcoins is goods, not currency that can compare with USD or another currency. We have homework for our descendants to change their mind if bitcoin is a currency, not goods in that always have a price.

1 bitcoin = 1 bitcoin, 1 sat = 1 sat, not $10 million or $23K.

That's a very optimistic prediction. $10 million per Bitcoin in just 9 years is too high I have difficulty agreeing with it. I think this is the highest price prediction of Bitcoin that I have encountered. Even $1 million per Bitcoin in a decade is a far-fetched idea to me. I'm not saying it won't happen but it is hard to imagine. But you are right that when Bitcoin was in its infancy days, nobody would also have imagined that it could grow as high as $69,000.

No matter what the know-it-alls say, the truth is that nobody knows where the price will be in 2032.


This

Have we already forgotten? Do we remember the price predictions made in 2021? They all failed. Price performance has in the end been much lower than predicted by apparently very sophisticated analyses.


The point is that impressive growth usually occurs in the first few years of the life of a business project or whatever it is that has a market valuation. Going from being worth USD 1 to USD 2 is much easier than going from being worth USD 10,000 to USD 20,000. It is even much more difficult if we are talking about millions.


 
 

$10  million dollars in 9 years to come isn't gonna be possible just with a normal environment for Bitcoin, definitely something will trigger such dramatic price increase, Like world wide adoption, Regulation, a World war 3 event that will cause a lot of devastation around world ,where people will be looking for save heaven asset like Bitcoin, because a lot of countries currency and economy is going to crumble.

But in a normal circumstances, I do believe that Bitcoin price will hit $1 million dollars in 9 years to come, If we have those money sitting right there in Bonds, 1-2 % of money sitting in Real Estate and Gold , money used in buying expensive watches ,jewelries and Cars etc begins to melt into Bitcoin, the price will likely be above 1$ Million in 9 years time.

Well, more sidechains can have positive and negative consequences, because it can add more use cases and reasons for people to buy it, but it can also take more transactions off-chain and that will reduce miners fees for miners. Now, people might say.. but we do not care if miners gets less miners fees, but that will be a terrible mistake.

We know the Block reward are reduced by 50% at every Halving ..every 4 years, so that means in a couple of years miners will receive almost zero block rewards and they will then rely on miners fees to pay for their hashing power. This is why we should look into ways to increase the miners fees.. not in ways to reduce it with off-chain or sidechain technologies.

Adam Back is making a price speculation. This topic should be moved in the Speculations forum.
Bitcoin market cap hitting a value, that is above the global GDP? 200 trillion dollars? Not going to happen, if you ask me. ;D
How would the sidechains help for pumping the BTC price? By making BTC more accessible? By increasing the amount of daily transactions?
Relying on second-layer solutions(which are centralized) is against the core concept of  Bitcoin. It's like relying on the fiat banks and investment funds to pump the BTC price. Many Bitcoiners are actually waiting for this to happen, but I think that it won't happen. The fiat financial system will always remain hostile towards Bitcoin/crypto.

Why mindlessly create sidechains that have no functional value? What we have already is good enough: LN, Liquid(?), and now, Ordinals (to appease the critics who want NFTs on Bitcoin).

There's no blueprint for making Bitcoin price to go up and that should not be the reason why you develop anyway - it's to make the service work out, In other words, making Bitcoin a practical payment method for the masses.

@NotATether
for one moment. please take the adoration of LN and set it aside.

LN is a flawed network. even liquid and RSK have flaws (but LN is the worse of the lot based on network security, pack of monetary policy, many attack vectors and vulnerabilities) where even the main LN devs cant fix certain things and they admit to it, and have spent years trying to find work arounds and telling people to be patient

liquid and LN are the products of blockstream and even adam back (ceo of blockstream) is suggesting that new sidechains and subnetworks are needed

no one is saying side/sub networks have no niche/utility.. but certain existing ones fail to meet their promises and dont have he network security and protocols and monetary policy to be trusted and deemed suitable for mass adoption/ popular use

stop feeling the warm feelings by listening to other fans naive adoration as confirmation bias. and have a real hard independant and critical look at it and listen when the devs of such are even themselves saying there are flaws

dont rely on the confirmation bias that something is great simply because another fan says so.

or carry on patiently waiting for dreams to come true and let the future show you the hard way

Exactly. This isn't like an iphone or a new Samsung Galaxy with new features, so people buy them just because it's the latest, and it can take photos at night or it can make you look beautiful while you're walking.

This is Bitcoin. People buy it not to flash or to fit a cool thing, that's altcoins and NFTs. Bitcoin is a lifestyle choice and you don't make it more attractive with bigger better newer tech.

I know it has flaws; my point was that we don't need to keep making bogus sidechains to keep the bitcoin price relevant to average joe.


Funny thing about this analogy was that someone was talking to me about buying the latest iPhone and then I mentioned how I was going to buy a Mac for development purposes (XCode mainly) and he just laughed.

People only really care about phones.

According to some calculations, even twice as much as the global GDP, which is estimated to have been around $100 trillion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)) for last year. If we take this information into account, then it really seems that someone is exaggerating and wants to be in the center of attention, regardless of the fact that he himself may be aware that what he is talking about is not real.

---

Maybe it's not a good comparison since Bitcoin is not a physical object to show around, unless you have one of those expensive watches (https://www.franckmuller.com/news/vanguard-encrypto-limited-edition) that have some interesting features that you can certainly flaunt around. Maybe some will disagree, but I have never considered Bitcoin a status symbol, but those who think differently obviously do not understand that they are endangering the personal safety of themselves and their loved ones - of course I mean us mere mortals, not people like Saylor or the famous W twins.

Global wealth is estimated to be at $360 trillion, which means that Bitcoin being worth $200 trillion would require the global economy to grow a lot, otherwise it's just way big of a share covered solely by Bitcoin. I don't see it happening any time soon, not even close. If anything, the economic growth seems to be slowing down, and even if it grows, say, 5% a year, I don't think that would be enough to accomodate such incredible value of Bitcoin and its cut in the grand scheme of things. Gold market cap is $12.3 trillion, and that's a fraction of what Bitcoin needs to achieve. I honestly think it's unrealistic because, while the global economy is growing, it's not happening nearly fast enough, and I don't see Bitcoin taking up, like, half of the global wealth.

Besides, all that money that people use to buy bitcoins have to go somewhere - its stored with the exchanges. And as people run out of money to buy Bitcoins with, exchanges will have more and more of the world's fiat money.

At this point, you'd expect Bitcoin to be less volatile, but when you see exchanges with the capacity to hold billions and just wipe it off the market, it kind of makes you think that such exchanges can still send similar-sized shockwaves if we get to that point in the future. To the tune of trillions of dollars wiped out (meaning people have less monetary value in their bitcoins but exchanges are left holding the majority of the world's wealth, making a depression of some sorts.)

my views are the blockstream/dcg adoration group want to make bitcoin irrelevant to make subnetworks the main thing people use so the "group" can profit off other peoples nativity

however bitcoin should remain as a payment network but have subnetworks for other fun stuff
subnetworks can add utility.
not about "making bitcoin relevant" or "making bitcoin irrelevant"

its about treat bitcoin as bitcoin and add utility to subnetworks of other niche uses

EG imagine the company Hasbro
where people can lock 0.03($600) on bitcoin to a stanfard publickey lock

and then on a "hasbro" decentralised subnetwork all customers can have a subchain they all account. audit and validate colectively thwir value

and then they can use their balance to play hasbro games using their value
so instead of play-money monopoly bank paper crap. people can bank up value and play monopoly for real winnings. and create leagues of entry level gamers, amateurs where the 'kitty' goes up and people can play each other at their own tier 'buy in amount'

all without relying on just paying hasbro as a custodian. but paying into a international network of hasbro customers self funding and self accounting

..
same goes for meta
where different cloud services rent their servers (as virtual 3d meta towns) where they can use a subnetwork as the currency of the virtual meta planet

and able to take their funds buy and spend funds as they move from virtual town to town or street to street or visit different virtual 3d stores to buy things. which if done right people are buying things in the meta 3d landscapes of virtual malls. which at payment results in real world goods delivered to their home (instead of boring webpages

where this "meta" subnetwork of currency is for the things under $100

there are a multitude of idea's and utility for niche services and systems

Still not stable with Bitcoin price but the early investor brave holding Bitcoin for the first time launching have earn much profit, but don't forget with investor entry when Bitcoin have all time high price last year got much loss right now after Bitcoin drop under $23,000. Based on your expectation about Bitcoin price back to higher price seems need longer time and hope at the next halving time have moment for Bitcoin can back to the top price again.

Actually not easy to be long term holding in Bitcoin, actually after raising profit about 40% until 60% every one have decision for selling their assets without think for long term holding.

I would not trust this prediction it is speculation and them being the blockstream ceo does not make their speculation or predictions any more accurate then random members on this forum. I have seen many of these predictions over the years that I have been involved in btc and none of them have been accurate. A lot of the people saying their predictions have other motivations why they do it and some of them do it just to stay relevant.

But what they are saying is kind of true we do need more infrastructure but the infrastructure will grow as btc gets more adoption and I do not think we are in trouble of not enough nodes or miners that it will become a problem. btc was designed to operate with lack of infrastructure the lack of miners will push the difficulty down and allow less funded people to mine instead. Nodes do not offer any incentive of running for the person and I think that is something we might need to change in the future to encourage people to run nodes.

I agree he's looking for those headlines and taking strange numbers out of air makes journalists want to confront you. Michael Saylor wasn't interviewed so much in 2022 because he knows a lot about bitcoin but all the hyenas wanted to ask him if he changed his mind about bitcoin after it fell 50%. If he wasn't as confident as he is they'd make it a headline "bitcoin believer cracking under pressure".

Don't forget about Russia. They were willing to accept bitcoin in exchange for oil last year. Those who are doing good are the least eager to make changes.

That's why I think it is hard to compare the acceleration of Bitcoin's price growth before when it was only worth a few dollars and today when the price is already above $20,000. Indeed it was easy for the price of Bitcoin to double if it is only worth $1. It could even grow 100% in just a day. Today, it simply isn't possible at all. Nobody would believe that Bitcoin's price would rise as high as $40,000 within 24 hours. So it is difficult to set as basis Bitcoin's past price increases for potential price increases in the future.

We all know that with growing popularity of btc the demand is also rising giving price boost but $1M is too big speculation at this time according to me as there needs to be huge investment flow in the market combining both institutions and retail investors contribution.If we say about more then a decade then we can expect prices to say rise above $500k per bitcoin without any existence of sidechains as we already hit $68k so $100k is achievable fast in coming years.But $1M is something big we can't say will happen or not.

Bitcoin enthusiasts believe that its limited supply and potential use as store of value could drive its price higher in the future but It won't be so easy for Bitcoin market to reach 200 trillion dollars in 9 years, the total market capitalization of all publicly traded companies in the world is estimated around 100 trillion dollars. If Bitcoin were to achieve 200 trillion dollars capitalization, it would be worth more than entire global stock market. It is difficult to predict if and when market cap will reach this level. Such s scenario would likely require massive increase in demand, continued adoption and use of crypto currency as store of value and method of payment. It is also possible that new technological developments and changes in regulatory laws could impact significantly the value of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin may not be physical but that's why I mentioned NFTs (or even altcoins like Shiba Inu). These were stuff you talked about and showed off that you got, I seen it on TV talkshows and even on radio. People talk about them like they talk about their latest vacation or their latest bling. It's actually quite a good comparison as you say, a status symbol.

Without needing to see it, people already imagine these things and "admire" the people who own them.

Bitcoin, for better or for worse, will never be that status symbol. If you talk about it on a TV talkshow or on radio, people will generally view you as scammer or con artist or crazy. Plus, people who talk about Bitcoin usually don't even talk about the latest upgrade or tech or whatever. Always about x10 POTENTIAL lol.

I've been there and seen everything, and believe me, I don't want to get into such situations again - you try to explain to a person what Bitcoin is, and in the end he concludes that it's a money laundering scheme or that you want to give him some ref link through which he has to join. Of course there are ref links to CEX or various other Bitcoin related things, but that is a side issue and not the point of the whole thing.


Some are not satisfied even with the possible x10 and investing in BTC is therefore no longer interesting to them, but everyone has the freedom of choice to do what they want with their money.

Admire people who own NFT's? What is this 2021? I think people mock others who own NFT's at this point because it makes no sense. I understand sidechains, not bitcoin getting forked or anything, but we have one chain that is segwit which gets a bulk load right now and we need to have a few layers on there to make sure that it works better, and that is understandable.

But aside from that, I do not think that it should be that complicated for bitcoin to go up, it is a good project and everyone trusts it and from people who have 10 dollars to people who have 10 billion dollars, they all want to be part of it so I think it shouldn't be hard for it to reach 10 million eventually.

Then we can understand each other. It wasn't like I was going out and telling people all about Bitcoin. It was just if there was ever a topic about money or something similar, or if Bitcoin came up, I definitely was a lot more open before and telling people what I found. But it then turns them to you, and they start attacking you as if you're asking for their money. Or like, you said, okay what's the catch, do I have to be your referral lol.

I even deleted social media after that because for some reason people even blamed me for "exposing them" when they went and joined some ponzi or ICO when I clearly never said such things.

Definitely, again, looking at this point. It's not more sidechains or tech needed for Bitcoin. People don't see the tech as special, or don't want to. They just need to understand the benefits of using it and unfortunately, some benefits can only be seen after experiencing loss on fiat systems.