All they are doing is laying out the math for hypothetical scenarios - i.e. what the price would look like if Bitcoin was as widely adopted as gold. Describing the $4.2 million number as some crackpot hard prediction is disingenuous to what they are actually doing here.

I'm not specifically a part of TZM but I see where this is going.

There are some fundamental flaws with a capitalistic system, State intervention or not. Most notable are the lack of a systems reference, lack of explicit concern for global resource depletion, and the mounds of structural violence it bestows upon various societies. I think capitalism was the most logical choice for humanity at the time of its inception, and you can perhaps make the argument that is the most sensible system to organize economic activity at the current moment.

However, it should be clear that it is not the end-game. We WILL enter into a post-capitalist age; whether it happens in 100 years, 1000 years, or 10000 years, this will occur. Consider the ways in which population growth, resource use, life support systems, technological advancement, and overall ephemeralization are trending and you will likely begin to understand this on a high level. I do not think we are there yet, but we are rapidly approaching the point (possibly this century) at which a post-capitalist transition is technically feasible. Of course, technical capacity is not the only barrier to such a transition and it would be silly to think such a massive metamorphosis would happen immediately given current constraints. What we are talking about is equal to or greater than the Neolithic Revolution in magnitude. But it is equally silly to conclude that social and economic evolution has come to a halt and our methods of economic organization will remain fundamentally static for the rest of humanity's time on this planet.

The particular attributes of any post-capitalist paradigm are not readily accepted and are not expected to be. Go back 15,000 years and ask a group of hunter-gatherers what the next economic paradigm will be and most would react much like the vehement capitalists of today: they would likely say no such paradigm exists, as the current one is the most logical and in the future it will remain fundamentally the same while possibly refining itself. Of course this analogy is absurd in an absolute regard, but it is axiomatically accurate.

With that said, these attributes are also apparent with the application of some critical thinking. The future economy plays out as an expanded series of "public libraries," in which all (or a vast majority of) industrial production is done in an automated fashion and the resulting goods are available on a basis of access rather than ownership. Hence, simply more complex public libraries with heavily advanced inventory management and distributive capabilities. This sort of system, once it is technically viable, makes currency, property, geopolitical debris, labor-for-income, etc. effectively obsolete relics (or fringe novelties at highest relevance).

All arguments against such a system appear to be products of status quo bias, ignorance, or truncated frames of reference. Most people confuse a proposition like "I philosophically disagree with this system" or "my static view of human nature and its role in human behavior precludes this system from existing" or "I cannot fathom resources being allocated properly without market forces" with an actual opposition to the proposition that "this system or something otherwise post-capitalist will emerge at some point during the future of humanity." Only after you understand this dynamic can you open your eyes and stop pretending that you have any control over the potential of the global zeitgeist.

Bitcoin is awesome. It's a pathway to open-source currency and value transfer within a capitalist framework. The system I have described and that TZM supports is a future pathway to total open-source economics in an entirely new framework.