Bitcoin - The road to a SIX DIGIT price valuation

[Wind_FURY]

To all those who read my opinions in different topics, you know that I'm cynical towards BlackRock's Bitcoin ETF because of the vague wording used about hard forks in their registration statement.

I want to get that out first before making the "shower thought" for the topic.

From an investment perspective, OK, I'm curious if anyone knows, when was the first modern ETF for Gold issued? Wikipedia says it was during 2003.

The first gold ETF launched was Gold Bullion Securities, which listed 28 March 2003 on the Australian Securities Exchange, by ETF Securities and its major shareholder, Graham Tuckwell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_exchange-traded_product

Zoom out Gold's chart to the maximum and look starting at 2003. Merely my two sats, but believe it will be the same for Bitcoin. It will have one of its greatest price trajectory we have ever seen during the next real bull cycle. Perhaps the same as 2015 - 2017, perhaps more?

I know franky1 doesn't believe it, we have debated about it before. Although he made a good point, he didn't consider the Cabal's long term, and possibly unlimited, printing of fiat.

 

On the road to $500,000.

[1714272144]

1714272144

[1714272144]

1714272144

[1714272144]

1714272144

[Tytanowy Janusz]

To tell you the truth, I personally am more skeptical that this ETF will give as much to Bitcoin as it did to gold. Gold is hard to buy, hard to sell, each transaction carries the risk of fraud (fake gold), requires a physical transfer to the mint/store and has a huge spread. Gold ETF solved all these problems and made it possible for you to buy physical gold in 2 clicks from home. The same cannot be said for bitcoin, because bitcoin is like gold with build in ETF. It's easy to buy, easy to sell, divisible to cents. And it's not like the ETF will open doors to big institutions either. Microstrategy didn't need an ETF to buy nearly 1% of all bitcoins.

[Wind_FURY]

To tell you the truth, I personally am more skeptical that this ETF will give as much to Bitcoin as it did to gold. Gold is hard to buy, hard to sell, each transaction carries the risk of fraud (fake gold), requires a physical transfer to the mint/store and has a huge spread. Gold ETF solved all these problems and made it possible for you to buy physical gold in 2 clicks from home. The same cannot be said for bitcoin, because bitcoin is like gold with build in ETF. It's easy to buy, easy to sell, divisible to cents. And it's not like the ETF will open doors to big institutions either. Microstrategy didn't need an ETF to buy nearly 1% of all bitcoins.

I respect your opinion and you have a point, but I can't entirely agree. Bitcoin is a blackhole for fiat currencies. If the Cabal behind the Central Banks print more, Bitcoin will absorb more and add to its market value. It's currently right there happening in front of us, and the ETFs will make the trajectory to six digits steeper and faster. Plus wait for QE when there's more liquidity available in the system. It might be "Oh My God It's Christmas" during March of 2025.

[Oshosondy]

Zoom out Gold's chart to the maximum and look starting at 2003. Merely my two sats, but believe it will be the same for Bitcoin. It will have one of its greatest price trajectory we have ever seen during the next real bull cycle. Perhaps the same as 2015 - 2017, perhaps more?

Many people have been thinking when bitcoin price will increase with massive bull market, but people have been expecting 2024/2025, which would be after halving. Either before bitcoin halving, or before 2025, there would have been what is called spot bitcoin ETF and it is one of the reasons bitcoin price will increase. I agree with you, bitcoin price price will increase. Anyone that can hold bitcoin now should hold it. Holding bitcoin now is not a mistake at all.

[bitbollo]

To tell you the truth, I personally am more skeptical that this ETF will give as much to Bitcoin as it did to gold. Gold is hard to buy, hard to sell, each transaction carries the risk of fraud (fake gold), requires a physical transfer to the mint/store and has a huge spread. Gold ETF solved all these problems and made it possible for you to buy physical gold in 2 clicks from home. The same cannot be said for bitcoin, because bitcoin is like gold with build in ETF. It's easy to buy, easy to sell, divisible to cents. And it's not like the ETF will open doors to big institutions either. Microstrategy didn't need an ETF to buy nearly 1% of all bitcoins.

buying and holding bitcoins requires a specific knowledge that an "average joe" has difficulty to understand. For what I have seen, even a person with more experience or informatic culture must spend some time before being able to mastering this argument.

Gold is just...  a "shining rock".
You take it in the form of a coin/bar/stone and you are done with the purchase storage part.

With bitcoin, if you think about it, it's not the same thing. And above all, there are now a few places (very often with insane high spreads) that allow you to buy it "live" in an easy way.
any other financial product you can buy/store it easily.
with bitcoin this is currently not real!

[Tytanowy Janusz]

I respect your opinion and you have a point, but I can't entirely agree. Bitcoin is a blackhole for fiat currencies. If the Cabal behind the Central Banks print more, Bitcoin will absorb more and add to its market value. It's currently right there happening in front of us, and the ETFs will make the trajectory to six digits steeper and faster. Plus wait for QE when there's more liquidity available in the system. It might be "Oh My God It's Christmas" during March of 2025.

So in your opinion the main driving force of btc pump to 6 digit will be QE and ETF will only facilitate the migration of capital. Am I right? I can definitely agree with that.

buying and holding bitcoins requires a specific knowledge that an "average joe" has difficulty to understand. For what I have seen, even a person with more experience or informatic culture must spend some time before being able to mastering this argument.

The "average joe" you are talking about, if he can't buy and store bitcoin because it's too hard for him, he probably doesn't know the difference between spot ETF and CFD either. So he is already in bitcoin using plus500 or any other regular broker. Exante for instance (fully regulated broker that I use to invest in stocks/bonds) have 150 krypto CFD trading pairs. On BTC/USD trading pair there is currenty 1$ spread

[Lucius]

To all those who read my opinions in different topics, you know that I'm cynical towards BlackRock's Bitcoin ETF because of the vague wording used about hard forks in their registration statement.

I found it and read it, and I have to admit that what is written there does not look good at all, because the fact that it is written there may mean that they (BlackRock) actually have the idea to make a fork in the future, and to use their influence and money, of course, to create its centralized version of BTC.

I have written in several posts that I think that all these big companies only care about profit and that they don't care what will happen to Bitcoin in the long term. Of course, for some it is not too important in the event that before that those companies create a massive bull run and inflate the price of BTC so that everyone becomes rich - although when I say everyone, it will certainly not be possible, because someone's gain is always someone's loss.

[Wind_FURY]

I respect your opinion and you have a point, but I can't entirely agree. Bitcoin is a blackhole for fiat currencies. If the Cabal behind the Central Banks print more, Bitcoin will absorb more and add to its market value. It's currently right there happening in front of us, and the ETFs will make the trajectory to six digits steeper and faster. Plus wait for QE when there's more liquidity available in the system. It might be "Oh My God It's Christmas" during March of 2025.

So in your opinion the main driving force of btc pump to 6 digit will be QE and ETF will only facilitate the migration of capital. Am I right? I can definitely agree with that.

Plus the fact that there's only a limited supply of 21,000,000 Bitcoins in total, making it a scarce asset that's attractive as a long term hedge against inflation.

To all those who read my opinions in different topics, you know that I'm cynical towards BlackRock's Bitcoin ETF because of the vague wording used about hard forks in their registration statement.

I found it and read it, and I have to admit that what is written there does not look good at all, because the fact that it is written there may mean that they (BlackRock) actually have the idea to make a fork in the future, and to use their influence and money, of course, to create its centralized version of BTC.

There could also be another hash war and if BlackRock and its cartel of ETF issuers have the same proposal in each of their registration statement, they may have some impact of their own on what's to be considered "The Bitcoin". Because they could follow one fork and threaten to dump the other side of the fork. What if the other side they plan to dump is Bitcoin, BTC?

[Who is John Galt?]

To tell you the truth, I personally am more skeptical that this ETF will give as much to Bitcoin as it did to gold. Gold is hard to buy, hard to sell, each transaction carries the risk of fraud (fake gold), requires a physical transfer to the mint/store and has a huge spread. Gold ETF solved all these problems and made it possible for you to buy physical gold in 2 clicks from home. The same cannot be said for bitcoin, because bitcoin is like gold with build in ETF. It's easy to buy, easy to sell, divisible to cents. And it's not like the ETF will open doors to big institutions either. Microstrategy didn't need an ETF to buy nearly 1% of all bitcoins.

Your words sound reasonable, but bitcoin also has its own characteristics. And it can be more convenient and easier for conservative investors to invest through a centralized system in a decentralized asset. To anyone with even the slightest understanding of what bitcoin is, this may sound absurd, but large conservative investors do not necessarily have a deep understanding of the nature of bitcoin, they may well be satisfied with the recommendations of analysts and guarantees of centralized funds.

[mk4]

The same cannot be said for bitcoin, because bitcoin is like gold with build in ETF. It's easy to buy, easy to sell, divisible to cents. And it's not like the ETF will open doors to big institutions either. Microstrategy didn't need an ETF to buy nearly 1% of all bitcoins.

With a spot ETF, the boomers wouldn't need to learn how to secure their non-custodial wallets or exchange accounts, and they'll have direct access using their brokers and retirement accounts right off the bat.

[tygeade]

buying and holding bitcoins requires a specific knowledge that an "average joe" has difficulty to understand. For what I have seen, even a person with more experience or informatic culture must spend some time before being able to mastering this argument.

The "average joe" you are talking about, if he can't buy and store bitcoin because it's too hard for him, he probably doesn't know the difference between spot ETF and CFD either. So he is already in bitcoin using plus500 or any other regular broker. Exante for instance (fully regulated broker that I use to invest in stocks/bonds) have 150 krypto CFD trading pairs. On BTC/USD trading pair there is currenty 1$ spread

Most people do not invest, you need to remember that when you are investing, most people either don't or can't invest. I have seen a lot of people around me who never invested ever, they just live paycheck to paycheck either because they are idiots who spend any extra money they get, or they are just not doing a good job and not making enough money at all.

This is why I keep insisting on living at a level where it would make a profit when the time comes. I hope that people could end up with a good return, and they would invest their profits into something that makes them even more money, but billions around the world do not invest at all, and have no savings. Only some people do, and when you have like 500 million to 1 billion people investing that looks a lot, but we have 8 billion people, you need to remember that.

[aoluain]

To tell you the truth, I personally am more skeptical that this ETF will give as much to Bitcoin as it did to gold. Gold is hard to buy, hard to sell, each transaction carries the risk of fraud (fake gold), requires a physical transfer to the mint/store and has a huge spread. Gold ETF solved all these problems and made it possible for you to buy physical gold in 2 clicks from home. The same cannot be said for bitcoin, because bitcoin is like gold with build in ETF. It's easy to buy, easy to sell, divisible to cents. And it's not like the ETF will open doors to big institutions either. Microstrategy didn't need an ETF to buy nearly 1% of all bitcoins.

Microstrategy is a completely different situation, at the helm there is someone who is 101%
clued in on Bitcoin and everything surrounding it.

People who are going to use an ETF dont want to know about wallets, storing seeds,
buying and transferring Bitcoin, they want to make a call or press a button or send an
email and its done, they get a certificate to say they "own bitcoin" - thats not good enough
for us but for those institutional investors who dont physically own the Gold in
their portfolio it will be normal

[Lucius]

There could also be another hash war and if BlackRock and its cartel of ETF issuers have the same proposal in each of their registration statement, they may have some impact of their own on what's to be considered "The Bitcoin". Because they could follow one fork and threaten to dump the other side of the fork. What if the other side they plan to dump is Bitcoin, BTC?

I understand people who think that the spot BTC ETF should have a positive effect on the price, but apparently there are very few who think at all about the far-reaching consequences when it comes to such big predators as BR or Fidelity. I have never read the requirements for the BTC ETFs in detail, but it would be interesting to find out if any other company had a similar text in its conditions, or is this something that BR did first?

There is an old post on Reddit written by admin @theymos 4-5 years ago on the subject of BTC ETF, I have quoted it several times on the forum, and somehow it seems to me that it could be the closest to the truth.

Agreed, an ETF will almost certainly turn into a disaster at some point. The coins will be stolen, forks will be handled controversially, there will be issues with fungibility (eg. someone will "trace stolen coins" to the ETF's stash), the world will freak out when a bunch of retirees lose their life savings after doing the equivalent of buying BTC at $20k, etc. etc. It'll also get the sort of people who love regulation more into BTC, which is never good.

But investors want it, so it'll probably happen eventually. In particular, I totally condemn trying to get regulators to interfere in the free market more than they already do by blocking any ETF. (When the SEC was last looking into this, I had actually written a long document that I was going to send to them in order to comment on many technical issues with their proposed Bitcoin ETF regulation, but I decided not to send it because I don't want to have even the slightest hand in regulations.)

An ETF probably will increase the price a lot (until the ETF suffers its near-inevitable catastrophe), which has some pros and cons.

Note that an ETF can't affect Bitcoin itself, just the ETF investors and the market. There is no voting of any sort in Bitcoin, so it's not as if holding a lot of BTC gives you any power over Bitcoin, for example. I do agree with Andreas that the creation of a "corpo-Bitcoin" seems probable, perhaps after the ETF loses a ton of BTC and wants to undo it.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153962.0

[buwaytress]

Struggling to come up with anything new to say about ETFs, but the first response to your OP covers the main meat. Institutions aren't sitting around waiting to get into Bitcoin, they already did. OTC has always been enough to sate institutional appetites, and even without ETFs, there are numerous ways to bet on Bitcoin without owning any (that satisfies what institutionals want anyway).

They wanted to bet on price, not own any. ETFs may have been the easiest route but the emergence of CME CBoE etc proved that the demand wasn't as the door-pounding ravenous hunger that we were told to expect.

Why should this be any different?

[Wind_FURY]

Struggling to come up with anything new to say about ETFs, but the first response to your OP covers the main meat. Institutions aren't sitting around waiting to get into Bitcoin, they already did. OTC has always been enough to sate institutional appetites, and even without ETFs, there are numerous ways to bet on Bitcoin without owning any (that satisfies what institutionals want anyway).

They wanted to bet on price, not own any. ETFs may have been the easiest route but the emergence of CME CBoE etc proved that the demand wasn't as the door-pounding ravenous hunger that we were told to expect.

Why should this be any different?

Point taken, I'm just making a simple comparison with Gold when it first had an ETF during 2003 and how it might probably end the same way with Bitcoin. If you didn't do it yet, do max zoom out on Gold's chart and look at the price movement starting in the year 2003.

 

I admit that I might be wrong, but with just 21,000,000 Bitcoins in existence partnered with an increasing money supply, it's hard not to see SIX DIGITS.

[Falconer]

I admit that I might be wrong, but with just 21,000,000 Bitcoins in existence partnered with an increasing money supply, it's hard not to see SIX DIGITS.

It was the main point that allowed the price of bitcoin to increase many times what it was before. ATH higher than $200k can be expected, but in the end it really depends on how the money flows into the market. If large investors start to find safe ways to buy bitcoins then obviously the high demand for the coin will increase its value automatically. We are on the road to reach a new ATH, but we don't know when that will happen and how high the realization will be.

I'm optimistic about the price of bitcoin in the long term, but it probably won't be that easy to reach $500k. It would take a lot of support and large amounts of money to drive bitcoin's price higher than $200k, but the most realistic thing right now is to set up a stronger portfolio to expect future returns.

[CarnagexD]

To all those who read my opinions in different topics, you know that I'm cynical towards BlackRock's Bitcoin ETF because of the vague wording used about hard forks in their registration statement.

I want to get that out first before making the "shower thought" for the topic.

From an investment perspective, OK, I'm curious if anyone knows, when was the first modern ETF for Gold issued? Wikipedia says it was during 2003.

The first gold ETF launched was Gold Bullion Securities, which listed 28 March 2003 on the Australian Securities Exchange, by ETF Securities and its major shareholder, Graham Tuckwell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_exchange-traded_product

Zoom out Gold's chart to the maximum and look starting at 2003. Merely my two sats, but believe it will be the same for Bitcoin. It will have one of its greatest price trajectory we have ever seen during the next real bull cycle. Perhaps the same as 2015 - 2017, perhaps more?

I know franky1 doesn't believe it, we have debated about it before. Although he made a good point, he didn't consider the Cabal's long term, and possibly unlimited, printing of fiat.

 

On the road to $500,000.

I don't think $500,000 would be realistic to get right away. But technically speaking 6 digits is probable around $100,000. That said also with BTC halving, seasonal tendency, and also market correlation with the USD going lower, BTC is truly likely to go higher along with other risk assets until proven that it is reverting back to lower prices.

[Oilacris]

^ 500k? It isnt realistic. Here's one;

Robert Kiyosaki Warns US Dollar 'Will Die' Citing BRICS Nations' Plan to Launch Gold-Backed Currency

Robert Kiyosaki predicts Bitcoin price rally to $120,000 amidst rising inflation in the US

These approach and price predictions is realistic comparing into those people who had been expecting 6 digit prices but on the higher side or something that its already that unrealistic
for us to believe on. Yes, it might be that possible but it wont really be that happening on a short time. This is why its better to be having that realistic approach
rather than on anticipating on something which it is close to impossible.

[hatshepsut93]

There is an old post on Reddit written by admin @theymos 4-5 years ago on the subject of BTC ETF, I have quoted it several times on the forum, and somehow it seems to me that it could be the closest to the truth.

Agreed, an ETF will almost certainly turn into a disaster at some point. The coins will be stolen, forks will be handled controversially, there will be issues with fungibility (eg. someone will "trace stolen coins" to the ETF's stash), the world will freak out when a bunch of retirees lose their life savings after doing the equivalent of buying BTC at $20k, etc. etc. It'll also get the sort of people who love regulation more into BTC, which is never good.

It's possible to never get hacked if the security is well-implemented. As I understand, ETF doesn't need hot wallets, because it's not supporting withdrawal of coins. Fungibility is not a problem for existing Bitcoin entities like crypto exchanges. They don't get shut down or fined because of stolen or dirty coins. ETF will have KYC, so they will cooperate with law enforcement if the trail of suspicious transactions will lead to them.

Obviously, Bitcoin ETF would need to be regulated to be allowed to operate, but I don't think it equals to Bitcoin becoming more regulated. You can still trade BTC on DEXs, Bitcoin ATMs, in-person meeting, etc.

[thecodebear]

Well, six digits is happening this market cycle without US ETFs. Last cycle high was $69k, I'd expect this cycle to hit ~$150k.

Also I do not get why people think an ETF will suddenly happen just because Blackrock filed for one. Gensler, the head of the SEC, hates bitcoin and crypto and thinks it shouldn't exist, he is suing the exchanges, his one goal is to cause chaos and uncertainty in the market and to try to push the industry out of the country he already essentially pre-rejected the ETF applications by saying there wasn't enough info or whatever, and just yesterday (just in case there was anyone still thinking an ETF was in some way possible) he basically said Coinbase can not be used as an SSA for these ETF applications which is just further proof that Blackrock and Fidelity ETFs which were gonna use Coinbase will not be accepted.

There is zero chance an ETF gets approved while Gensler is in charge, and his term lasts until 2026, so no ETF is happening this market cycle. I could see an ETF happening next market cycle though in like 2027 or 2028 assuming the SEC leadership is unbiased towards Bitcoin/Crypto at that point. So if that happens the positive price effects on an ETF would be seen during the 2028/2029 bull market.



This market cycle ~$150k and definitely no ETF.


Next market cycle, maybe an ETF.
I expect both the news of an ETF getting approved, as well as the actual start of the ETF buying, will both have strong positive effects on the Bitcoin price when it finally does happen in like probably ~5 years. I would expect 5-10 billion dollars to flood into Bitcoin ETFs within a few months or them starting, meanings tens of thousands of Bitcoin being tied up in ETFs (remember, this won't happen until late this decade during next market cycle so if it happens around the current point in the market cycle but next market cycle the price maybe be like $100k-$150k when any of this starts happening). But the indirectly market effect - the market buying up Bitcoin on the news of an ETF - will likely be much bigger than the direct effect of ETF buying.

So let's say a Bitcoin ETF is approved in mid-2027 when the price of Bitcoin is $100k (having come out of the bear market recently like the current market), just the announcement I bet would start a buying spree and probably move the price up tens of thousands of dollars. Then the actual launch of ETFs, along with the indirectly market buying around the launch, might send the price up another $10k or something. In total, I could see the effect of a Bitcoin ETF next market cycle being like a 50% gain over the short term (say from $100k to $150k, or whatever prices it is at at that point). More generally it would probably make general public sentiment toward Bitcoin more positive so I'd say it might move my 2029 bull market prediction from like currently ~$300k up to ~$400k+ with an ETF, especially if we also get sensible US cryptocurrency market regulation next market cycle as well.

[Wind_FURY]

^ 500k? It isnt realistic. Here's one;

Robert Kiyosaki Warns US Dollar 'Will Die' Citing BRICS Nations' Plan to Launch Gold-Backed Currency

Robert Kiyosaki predicts Bitcoin price rally to $120,000 amidst rising inflation in the US

These approach and price predictions is realistic comparing into those people who had been expecting 6 digit prices but on the higher side or something that its already that unrealistic for us to believe on. Yes, it might be that possible but it wont really be that happening on a short time. This is why its better to be having that realistic approach rather than on anticipating on something which it is close to impossible.

It isn't realistic in the long term, or for just the next bull cycle? If your answer is a "No" for both, then I can't say that I agree. I believe QE/Brrr-Money-Printing, the possbility of multiple ETFs, and the Market Mania by investors during the next bull market in 2025 will all be enough to make Bitcoin surge to $500,000. If I'm wrong, OK. But it wouldn't be wrong to keep buying the DIP NOW, and HODL.

Plus I wouldn't trust Robert Kiyosaki and other book sellers like him. Most of the time, they're merely there to sell their books.

There could also be another hash war and if BlackRock and its cartel of ETF issuers have the same proposal in each of their registration statement, they may have some impact of their own on what's to be considered "The Bitcoin". Because they could follow one fork and threaten to dump the other side of the fork. What if the other side they plan to dump is Bitcoin, BTC?

I understand people who think that the spot BTC ETF should have a positive effect on the price, but apparently there are very few who think at all about the far-reaching consequences when it comes to such big predators as BR or Fidelity. I have never read the requirements for the BTC ETFs in detail, but it would be interesting to find out if any other company had a similar text in its conditions, or is this something that BR did first?

There is an old post on Reddit written by admin @theymos 4-5 years ago on the subject of BTC ETF, I have quoted it several times on the forum, and somehow it seems to me that it could be the closest to the truth.

Agreed, an ETF will almost certainly turn into a disaster at some point. The coins will be stolen, forks will be handled controversially, there will be issues with fungibility (eg. someone will "trace stolen coins" to the ETF's stash), the world will freak out when a bunch of retirees lose their life savings after doing the equivalent of buying BTC at $20k, etc. etc. It'll also get the sort of people who love regulation more into BTC, which is never good.

But investors want it, so it'll probably happen eventually. In particular, I totally condemn trying to get regulators to interfere in the free market more than they already do by blocking any ETF. (When the SEC was last looking into this, I had actually written a long document that I was going to send to them in order to comment on many technical issues with their proposed Bitcoin ETF regulation, but I decided not to send it because I don't want to have even the slightest hand in regulations.)

An ETF probably will increase the price a lot (until the ETF suffers its near-inevitable catastrophe), which has some pros and cons.

Note that an ETF can't affect Bitcoin itself, just the ETF investors and the market. There is no voting of any sort in Bitcoin, so it's not as if holding a lot of BTC gives you any power over Bitcoin, for example. I do agree with Andreas that the creation of a "corpo-Bitcoin" seems probable, perhaps after the ETF loses a ton of BTC and wants to undo it.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5153962.0

OK, so the Giga-Chads have already opened a debate about the issue.

There's also another shower thought that I brought up before. What if the banksters and institutions like BlackRock hold more than 50% of the Bitcoin in circulation, and increasing. Could be say that Bitcoin as a currency has failed?

[Lucius]

~snip~
OK, so the Giga-Chads have already opened a debate about the issue.

There's also another shower thought that I brought up before. What if the banksters and institutions like BlackRock hold more than 50% of the Bitcoin in circulation, and increasing. Could be say that Bitcoin as a currency has failed?

Bitcoin will always remain available to ordinary people even in the event that someone owns 50% or more coins, and that means that the idea on which Satoshi designed the whole thing will still exist. As for the question of whether Bitcoin has failed as a currency, it's highly debatable, but I believe we can agree that most people don't perceive it that way.

It remains to be seen what effects the possible spot BTC ETF will produce (short-term or long-term), but I personally hope that there will always be a certain percentage of people who will follow Satoshi's vision and will not deviate from the basic ideas - which means that Bitcoin will always represent what it represents today.

[Wind_FURY]

~snip~
OK, so the Giga-Chads have already opened a debate about the issue.

There's also another shower thought that I brought up before. What if the banksters and institutions like BlackRock hold more than 50% of the Bitcoin in circulation, and increasing. Could be say that Bitcoin as a currency has failed?

Bitcoin will always remain available to ordinary people even in the event that someone owns 50% or more coins, and that means that the idea on which Satoshi designed the whole thing will still exist. As for the question of whether Bitcoin has failed as a currency, it's highly debatable, but I believe we can agree that most people don't perceive it that way.

It remains to be seen what effects the possible spot BTC ETF will produce (short-term or long-term), but I personally hope that there will always be a certain percentage of people who will follow Satoshi's vision and will not deviate from the basic ideas - which means that Bitcoin will always represent what it represents today.

But how high is the threshold before it truly becomes concerning? More than 80%? 90%? Bitcoin is a limited resource and there's twelve out of twenty of the biggest investment banks and asset managers in the world that wants to gain custody of Bitcoin in some form.



Altogether they control TRILLIONS of wealth.

It's probably why Bitcoin developer Peter Todd has currently been saying that he's open to the idea of an inflationary cryptocurrency.

[Who is John Galt?]

Altogether they control TRILLIONS of wealth.

It's probably why Bitcoin developer Peter Todd has currently been saying that he's open to the idea of an inflationary cryptocurrency.

There are already a huge number of such cryptocurrencies. There are already so many full-fledged blockchains that it is difficult to count them all. If someone needs inflationary cryptocurrencies, then they can either choose from this set or make their own as much as they want.

As for trillions, they are not going to buy bitcoins with all these trillions. If I go to a candy store with a thousand dollars of capital, it does not mean that I will spend more than a few dollars there.

[Wind_FURY]

Altogether they control TRILLIONS of wealth.

It's probably why Bitcoin developer Peter Todd has currently been saying that he's open to the idea of an inflationary cryptocurrency.

There are already a huge number of such cryptocurrencies. There are already so many full-fledged blockchains that it is difficult to count them all. If someone needs inflationary cryptocurrencies, then they can either choose from this set or make their own as much as they want.

That's not the point. The point is how Peter Todd's change of opinion from a "limited supply is good" to "inflationary supply is good". We're merely talking about concepts and how theoretically one might be better than the other for the long term sustainability of a cryptocurrency network.

As for trillions, they are not going to buy bitcoins with all these trillions. If I go to a candy store with a thousand dollars of capital, it does not mean that I will spend more than a few dollars there.

It doesn't change the fact that they can put a large percentage of the total supply in their custody, and the question is, "What is the threshold before it becomes truly concerning"?

[Who is John Galt?]

It doesn't change the fact that they can put a large percentage of the total supply in their custody, and the question is, "What is the threshold before it becomes truly concerning"?

This is important now and from the very beginning. Once it became apparent that bitcoin had become an important element in the world of finance, it became easy to predict the interest of large corporations. We have been seeing for a long time how bitcoin is being bought up even in view by the thousands and tens of thousands, and how many more secret purchases. But changing the original rules of the supply-limited game could change everything, because bitcoin's conservatism gives it prestige and a level of credibility. Trying to fit in with momentary interests can change everything, and we should not listen to those who are thinking about abandoning the idea of limited issue.

[Wind_FURY]

It doesn't change the fact that they can put a large percentage of the total supply in their custody, and the question is, "What is the threshold before it becomes truly concerning"?

This is important now and from the very beginning. Once it became apparent that bitcoin had become an important element in the world of finance, it became easy to predict the interest of large corporations. We have been seeing for a long time how bitcoin is being bought up even in view by the thousands and tens of thousands, and how many more secret purchases. But changing the original rules of the supply-limited game could change everything, because bitcoin's conservatism gives it prestige and a level of credibility. Trying to fit in with momentary interests can change everything, and we should not listen to those who are thinking about abandoning the idea of limited issue.

Actually no, I'm personally NOT for the debate that Bitcoin should have a hard fork to change the supply cap. I believe that part of the protocol is ossified. I'm asking "what is the threshold", a question/topic that's admittedly a difficult issue. To put it in an extreme situation, if 90% of Bitcoin's supply was under the custody of a cartel of 10 asset managers, could it be said that Bitcoin has failed?

To put that in context with this topic, if truly twelve of the twenty largest banks and asset managers truly want to accumulate as much Bitcoin as they possibly can, then $500,000 per Bitcoin is not really that high.

[pooya87]

I still believe that ETF effects on bitcoin price has been greatly exaggerated, although it will definitely have a positive effect on the price.

In any case when it comes to the next big rise, as I've said before the global economy is the major factor affecting the market for now. The rising inflation was excellent for bitcoin but then recession started and ruined its effects. Now they are trying to reach an equilibrium which is why we don't see rise (or fall) start.
But the inflation is still rising very fast and its effects on bitcoin price is growing. After all this fast growing national debt[1] due to nonstop money printing is bound to push bitcoin price up. $32.5 trillion US debt, $14.5 trillion Chinese debt, $13.5 trillion Japanese debt, and so on. US alone printed over a trillion in the past couple of months ever since the debt ceiling was raised.
In other words 6 digit price is definitely possible in the next major bull run.

[1] https://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html

[OgNasty]

I’m also one of the guys that thinks an ETF will be necessary to get Bitcoin to the next level price wise. I believe it will be extremely similar to what happened to gold. The argument that BTC is easy for people to buy excludes the big money from funds that need an ETF in order to invest. The days of retail investors mattering for Bitcoin are numbered.

[serjent05]

On the road to $500,000.

I am always optimistic about Bitcoin but I think Bitcoin will be able to hit this price after multiple halving events, maybe after 3 or 4 halving events.  The reason is that adoption won't be able to support this price range yet. I also think that it is too early to think that the market is ready for the $500k price.  Although I like this thing to happen, I think I will keep my ground on being realistic while of course wishing that your target price happen sooner than I am expecting.

[dunfida]

On the road to $500,000.

I am always optimistic about Bitcoin but I think Bitcoin will be able to hit this price after multiple halving events, maybe after 3 or 4 halving events.  The reason is that adoption won't be able to support this price range yet. I also think that it is too early to think that the market is ready for the $500k price.  Although I like this thing to happen, I think I will keep my ground on being realistic while of course wishing that your target price happen sooner than I am expecting.

We cant really tell but we could definitely say that 500k would be still too far off and i would agree on that couple of cycles or halving event before we could be able to reach out such state.Its not really that something

that could be predicted but if overall worldwide adoption and recognition would go or reach into a certain extent then we might really be seeing these numbers but for now? It would really be better that you shouldnt really be making yourself that too optimistic on things so that you wouldnt really be stressing out yourself on minding about those numbers which it might not even to happen in our lifetime. Just deal on the current price
that we do have as of this moment and just let yourself go with the flow and dont get stressed just by because you are way too optimistic about its price. I cant blame out other people though but there are things
which arent supposed to be that way. We would reach there on due or perfect time but of course you should really be accumulating or having that sufficient amount that had been bagged.

[AmoreJaz]

On the road to $500,000.

I am always optimistic about Bitcoin but I think Bitcoin will be able to hit this price after multiple halving events, maybe after 3 or 4 halving events.  The reason is that adoption won't be able to support this price range yet. I also think that it is too early to think that the market is ready for the $500k price.  Although I like this thing to happen, I think I will keep my ground on being realistic while of course wishing that your target price happen sooner than I am expecting.

if nothing else, people are being optimistic with this market. we all know, realistically speaking, such target price is still far from what we have right now. first, we need to target the 100k mark, and for this to happen, the percentage of adoption should increase. where people are getting used to this currency as payment method. we need more merchants accepting this payment method.

[Wind_FURY]

I still believe that ETF effects on bitcoin price has been greatly exaggerated, although it will definitely have a positive effect on the price.

Do you believe that $500,000 per Bitcoin is merely an exaggeration by 2025 - 2026 considering Bitcoin's trajectory since 2010?

In any case when it comes to the next big rise, as I've said before the global economy is the major factor affecting the market for now. The rising inflation was excellent for bitcoin but then recession started and ruined its effects. Now they are trying to reach an equilibrium which is why we don't see rise (or fall) start.

The context of the topic is in how Gold's ETF, during 2003, helped started a strong surge on its price, AND it's trading near its ATH despite going through different economic crashes/crises. It could probably happen for Bitcoin too after ETF approval, no?

But the inflation is still rising very fast and its effects on bitcoin price is growing. After all this fast growing national debt[1] due to nonstop money printing is bound to push bitcoin price up. $32.5 trillion US debt, $14.5 trillion Chinese debt, $13.5 trillion Japanese debt, and so on. US alone printed over a trillion in the past couple of months ever since the debt ceiling was raised.

In other words 6 digit price is definitely possible in the next major bull run.

[1] https://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html

Long term, maximum zoom out = YES.

🤝

serjent05, dunfida, and AmoreJaz, I respect your opinions. But my suggestion is, just HODL on to your Bitcoins no matter how small the amount.

[fzkto]

~snip~
OK, so the Giga-Chads have already opened a debate about the issue.

There's also another shower thought that I brought up before. What if the banksters and institutions like BlackRock hold more than 50% of the Bitcoin in circulation, and increasing. Could be say that Bitcoin as a currency has failed?

Bitcoin will always remain available to ordinary people even in the event that someone owns 50% or more coins, and that means that the idea on which Satoshi designed the whole thing will still exist. As for the question of whether Bitcoin has failed as a currency, it's highly debatable, but I believe we can agree that most people don't perceive it that way.

It remains to be seen what effects the possible spot BTC ETF will produce (short-term or long-term), but I personally hope that there will always be a certain percentage of people who will follow Satoshi's vision and will not deviate from the basic ideas - which means that Bitcoin will always represent what it represents today.

But how high is the threshold before it truly becomes concerning? More than 80%? 90%? Bitcoin is a limited resource and there's twelve out of twenty of the biggest investment banks and asset managers in the world that wants to gain custody of Bitcoin in some form.



Altogether they control TRILLIONS of wealth.

It's probably why Bitcoin developer Peter Todd has currently been saying that he's open to the idea of an inflationary cryptocurrency.

That will be the main game between these major funds. They will try to capture the maximum amount of coins trying to cheat each other. We call it market cycles, uptrends, downtrends, sideways movement and so on. But the rules of the game will be dictated by these big players. In other words, nothing will change globally, but new big players will appear on the market and they will influence bitcoin in every possible way, dumping and pumping up the price.

[jaberwock]

I admit that I might be wrong, but with just 21,000,000 Bitcoins in existence partnered with an increasing money supply, it's hard not to see SIX DIGITS.

It was the main point that allowed the price of bitcoin to increase many times what it was before. ATH higher than $200k can be expected, but in the end it really depends on how the money flows into the market. If large investors start to find safe ways to buy bitcoins then obviously the high demand for the coin will increase its value automatically. We are on the road to reach a new ATH, but we don't know when that will happen and how high the realization will be.

I'm optimistic about the price of bitcoin in the long term, but it probably won't be that easy to reach $500k. It would take a lot of support and large amounts of money to drive bitcoin's price higher than $200k, but the most realistic thing right now is to set up a stronger portfolio to expect future returns.

Given that BTC price had increase many times, so why ask for more? Though some people aren't just contented so they want even more but they shouldn't worry because I have a feeling that BTC can still reach a six digit milestone. $100k is more realistic for now but I'm skeptical if it can continue at least for $200k.

There are leads on when we will see a major bump in the price. Don't tell me you never heard of it? Halving? We all here are optimistic but we need to be realistic so that it won't hurt us just in case our expectations won't be met. To set up a strong portfolio seems hard as well. We won't just pick up a strong coin but we also need a lot of money.

[imamusma]

There are leads on when we will see a major bump in the price. Don't tell me you never heard of it? Halving? We all here are optimistic but we need to be realistic so that it won't hurt us just in case our expectations won't be met.

When the market is unlikely to provide certainty to holders and traders about price, then of course investing what you can afford to lose is the best advice. Even though bitcoin may be $500k in 2025 or after, some adjustments to minimize risk will still have to be made. Obviously a halving will push prices higher, but bitcoin ETFs can also have an impact on prices.

Regardless of the odds, I believe the price of bitcoin will gradually rise even if a bitcoin ETF is not approved. The halving will be a strong fundamental to get traders and investors to be optimistic about the price, even we can expect a new ATH in the future.

[Who is John Galt?]

Actually no, I'm personally NOT for the debate that Bitcoin should have a hard fork to change the supply cap. I believe that part of the protocol is ossified. I'm asking "what is the threshold", a question/topic that's admittedly a difficult issue. To put it in an extreme situation, if 90% of Bitcoin's supply was under the custody of a cartel of 10 asset managers, could it be said that Bitcoin has failed?

To put that in context with this topic, if truly twelve of the twenty largest banks and asset managers truly want to accumulate as much Bitcoin as they possibly can, then $500,000 per Bitcoin is not really that high.

Let's imagine that your assumption is realized. A few funds have taken and concentrated in their hands almost all bitcoins, because they decided that this is a good investment. As a consequence of this decision, bitcoin will practically stop moving, because it makes no sense for them to sell it, this is a long-term investment. In the absence of movement, miners will no longer be interested in it, difficulty will drop, the risk of a 51% attack will increase, trust in bitcoin will decrease, bitcoin will start to drop sharply in price, and investments in bitcoin will depreciate.

If some random dude on the forum managed to see this scenario over a cup of hot drink, then the analytical departments of the funds are also quite capable of doing such analyzes. Accordingly, no funds are interested in buying up and hiding all bitcoins, they are interested in participating in the development of bitcoin, but within the limits of not depreciating the asset in which they invest. If they have large enough investments, they may well take an active part in the circulation of bitcoins.

So I don't think the problem is realizable.

[Webetcoins]

I understand that ETFs can make more room for Bitcoin to spread and grow, but having unrealistic expectations is not good in my opinion. It's okay to speculate, but don't expect that it will happen. And the price of Gold and Bitcoin react very differently to things, especially if it's about something happening in the mainstream world because Bitcoin doesn't react the same way as gold to real-life events but it basically depends on how much is the demand at a certain point.

The demand will surely increase after the ETFs are issued because there will be more opportunities for people to invest in Bitcoin and people who never knew about Bitcoin will come to know about it and might even start investing too if they see a centralized institution is offering the opportunity.

[Poker Player]

From an investment perspective, OK, I'm curious if anyone knows, when was the first modern ETF for Gold issued? Wikipedia says it was during 2003.
...
Zoom out Gold's chart to the maximum and look starting at 2003. Merely my two sats, but believe it will be the same for Bitcoin. It will have one of its greatest price trajectory we have ever seen during the next real bull cycle. Perhaps the same as 2015 - 2017, perhaps more?

Correlation does not imply causation. If I fart now and you see that it starts to rain, would you say that it started to rain because I farted?

Well, six digits is happening this market cycle without US ETFs.

Yes.

Last cycle high was $69k, I'd expect this cycle to hit ~$150k.

I think more or less the same, but maybe the price will go higher, what is clear to me is that $200K is a resistance that I doubt we can overcome in the next cycle.

Do you believe that $500,000 per Bitcoin is merely an exaggeration by 2025 - 2026 considering Bitcoin's trajectory since 2010?

Of course it is an exaggeration. McAfee already said he would eat his dick on national TV if we didn't reach that price by 2020. 2-3 years ago Dan Held's supercycle theory also predicted we would have reached that price this same cycle and the price didn't go over $69K. It is clear that the price will reach half a million but not as fast as some predict.

You can't take the price evolution from the beginning and think that going forward the price is going to grow the same, especially considering that the price growth has been the lowest this cycle of all. When the price and the market cap of an asset grows it costs more to move it. It is normal that in the future the returns will be like those of this cycle or lower, so it is logical to expect a maximum of 3.5 times the peak of the previous peak of $69K, probably less.

[YUriy1991]

To tell you the truth, I personally am more skeptical that this ETF will give as much to Bitcoin as it did to gold. Gold is hard to buy, hard to sell, each transaction carries the risk of fraud (fake gold), requires a physical transfer to the mint/store and has a huge spread. Gold ETF solved all these problems and made it possible for you to buy physical gold in 2 clicks from home. The same cannot be said for bitcoin, because bitcoin is like gold with build in ETF. It's easy to buy, easy to sell, divisible to cents. And it's not like the ETF will open doors to big institutions either. Microstrategy didn't need an ETF to buy nearly 1% of all bitcoins.

The Bitcoin ETF Matbe is not a 1:1 match to Bitcoin itself, as its price may not track the underlying asset perfectly. As you stated above it is possible that although the introduction of ETFs will not have a significant impact on the adoption of Bitcoin by large institutions such as MicroStrategy But, I think it also plays a key role in terms of attracting more institutional investors.

I respect your opinion and you have a point, but I can't entirely agree. Bitcoin is a blackhole for fiat currencies. If the Cabal behind the Central Banks print more, Bitcoin will absorb more and add to its market value. It's currently right there happening in front of us, and the ETFs will make the trajectory to six digits steeper and faster. Plus wait for QE when there's more liquidity available in the system. It might be "Oh My God It's Christmas" during March of 2025.

Yes, Like you say, The Quantitative Easing (QE) will show indications that an expansion in the money supply can further increase the value of Bitcoin later. Nice to wait.

[yhiaali3]

This is my opinion as well. Big companies like BlackRock don't care about Bitcoin anyway. All they think about is reaping huge profits. The last thing they think about is adopting Bitcoin as it was found as a decentralized means of payment.

On the contrary, I think they will be happy (and with them the governments of course) the more and more centralized Bitcoin is, so I think the negatives of companies entering the market will be greater than the positives.

Unfortunately, not only companies, but the majority do not think about the future of Bitcoin. They only care about the high price, whatever the results.

[boyptc]

If it's just for the sake of Bitcoin's growth, we have to embrace all the changes despite we don't like it that the fact Bitcoin has been decentralized all of this time and there goes the adoption from these institutions making an ETF.

As an investor, I'd really like to see that happen in the future. Whether it's $100k, $500k, $1M or even more. There has to be the driving force to make the surge for Bitcoin's price. We've seen this many times in the past when these financial institution touches the market, everyone's driving it crazy.

Anyway, it's just a matter of time until we see such higher price but without a doubt. Thanks to halving as that's the main driving force for the bull run soon.

[Tytanowy Janusz]

The Bitcoin ETF Matbe is not a 1:1 match to Bitcoin itself, as its price may not track the underlying asset perfectly.

Bitcoin spot ETF, like any spot ETF, maintains the exact price as native asset, because the operator transfers each transaction directly to the native market (bitcoin exchange). In the sense that when you buy 1 bitcoin in the form of an ETF, the operator who provides this ETF, at the same time, buys bitcoin for you and store it for you. So if the ETF price were to be below the bitcoin spot price, the operator would have to pay extra to the business.

The only situation where a spot ETF transaction is not directly transferred to the Bitcoin market is when 2 ETF holders exchanged (one sold, the other bought) and it happened below the maximum spread provided by the operator.
because above the maximum spread allowed by the operator, you make transactions not with other users but with the operator.

[Silberman]

This is my opinion as well. Big companies like BlackRock don't care about Bitcoin anyway. All they think about is reaping huge profits. The last thing they think about is adopting Bitcoin as it was found as a decentralized means of payment.

On the contrary, I think they will be happy (and with them the governments of course) the more and more centralized Bitcoin is, so I think the negatives of companies entering the market will be greater than the positives.

Unfortunately, not only companies, but the majority do not think about the future of Bitcoin. They only care about the high price, whatever the results.

Unfortunately there is nothing anyone can do about it, anyone that wants to become part of this market can do so whether they want to invest one dollar or several billions, and while I think as well the negatives are many times bigger than whatever positive influence they can bring to the market, they are basically within their rights to use an asset to increase their profits, I just hope people can see through it and understand that bitcoin is more than just a way to earn a few dollars.

[Wind_FURY]

From an investment perspective, OK, I'm curious if anyone knows, when was the first modern ETF for Gold issued? Wikipedia says it was during 2003.
...
Zoom out Gold's chart to the maximum and look starting at 2003. Merely my two sats, but believe it will be the same for Bitcoin. It will have one of its greatest price trajectory we have ever seen during the next real bull cycle. Perhaps the same as 2015 - 2017, perhaps more?

Correlation does not imply causation. If I fart now and you see that it starts to rain, would you say that it started to rain because I farted?

What? Haha. Your fart has directly nothing to do with the rain, but the billions in new investment going into Bitcoin will definitely have a direct price impact. But just like "correlation does not equal causation", there IS a correlation. Gold's price went up because of the ETF could correlate to Bitcoin's price going up because of the ETF.

 

Actually no, I'm personally NOT for the debate that Bitcoin should have a hard fork to change the supply cap. I believe that part of the protocol is ossified. I'm asking "what is the threshold", a question/topic that's admittedly a difficult issue. To put it in an extreme situation, if 90% of Bitcoin's supply was under the custody of a cartel of 10 asset managers, could it be said that Bitcoin has failed?

To put that in context with this topic, if truly twelve of the twenty largest banks and asset managers truly want to accumulate as much Bitcoin as they possibly can, then $500,000 per Bitcoin is not really that high.

Let's imagine that your assumption is realized. A few funds have taken and concentrated in their hands almost all bitcoins, because they decided that this is a good investment. As a consequence of this decision, bitcoin will practically stop moving, because it makes no sense for them to sell it, this is a long-term investment. In the absence of movement, miners will no longer be interested in it, difficulty will drop, the risk of a 51% attack will increase, trust in bitcoin will decrease, bitcoin will start to drop sharply in price, and investments in bitcoin will depreciate.

I'm not asking if it fails, it will surely fail. What I've been asking is what is the threshold? How much of the supply must be held by a cartel of asset managers for us to say that Bitcoin has failed?

Because of the ETF, I'm bullish for the price, but I'm not very bullish for the network.

If some random dude on the forum managed to see this scenario over a cup of hot drink, then the analytical departments of the funds are also quite capable of doing such analyzes. Accordingly, no funds are interested in buying up and hiding all bitcoins, they are interested in participating in the development of bitcoin, but within the limits of not depreciating the asset in which they invest. If they have large enough investments, they may well take an active part in the circulation of bitcoins.

So I don't think the problem is realizable.

You're saying they will control the supply. OK, that will not be very ideal for the network

[Lucius]

But how high is the threshold before it truly becomes concerning? More than 80%? 90%? Bitcoin is a limited resource and there's twelve out of twenty of the biggest investment banks and asset managers in the world that wants to gain custody of Bitcoin in some form.



Altogether they control TRILLIONS of wealth.

It's probably why Bitcoin developer Peter Todd has currently been saying that he's open to the idea of an inflationary cryptocurrency.

It is important to emphasize "in some form", which means that all those who provide futures trading services are not directly related to Bitcoin, while everyone else, regardless of all those trillions of dollars, will still invest only small percentages directly in BTC, and it is also important to emphasize that BTC is not the only thing they are interested in when it comes to cryptocurrencies.

The question you're asking therefore doesn't have any concrete answers because we can only speculate on how much money will really go towards Bitcoin, and whether at some point Bitcoin will become a game only for big guys. However, all of us who have been with Bitcoin for a long time have one big advantage over all these institutions, and that is that we have long understood what Bitcoin is, and they are just beginning to understand it.

I hope that regardless of the price that may be formed in the future, some people will not agree to sell their BTC, even for very tempting amounts that will be offered to them. After all, our strength is in numbers, millions against ten or twenty companies - I think we have a chance.

[bg002h]

Agreed. It seems every halving brings with it a new avenue for money to flow into bitcoin. Fiat leaking into bitcoin requires cracks in the dam and those cracks require preparation…fiat producers love themselves capital controls.

I know franky1 doesn't believe it, we have debated about it before. Although he made a good point, he didn't consider the Cabal's long term, and possibly unlimited, printing of fiat.

 

On the road to $500,000.

You know how they just “raised the debt ceiling?” This isn’t true. They didn’t raise the ceiling, they eliminated it until a future date. Do you remember the last time they did that? It was august 2019. September 2019 was the repo crisis, where overnight loans on treasuries hit an annualized interest rate of 10%! And conveniently we had a reason to make money printer go BRRR in 2020.

I don’t in general like conspiracies, but with no limit on US debt, we have effectively put a blank check out there for anyone to cash if they can create the economic conditions necessary to justify massive money printing. We are incentivizing our own destruction. I wouldn’t be surprised if we have some major happen in 2024…a new pandemic with lockdowns, WW3 starting in earnest, aliens turn out to be here and not-so-friendly, etc…

[tygeade]

Struggling to come up with anything new to say about ETFs, but the first response to your OP covers the main meat. Institutions aren't sitting around waiting to get into Bitcoin, they already did. OTC has always been enough to sate institutional appetites, and even without ETFs, there are numerous ways to bet on Bitcoin without owning any (that satisfies what institutionals want anyway).

They wanted to bet on price, not own any. ETFs may have been the easiest route but the emergence of CME CBoE etc proved that the demand wasn't as the door-pounding ravenous hunger that we were told to expect.

Why should this be any different?

That's the point, if there are tens of billions of dollars in the bitcoin world by these giant companies, then we shouldn't be shocked that ETF is not the only thing that matters. I am not saying that ETF would not mean anything, but do not consider that as the only thing that matters neither.

I believe that we are going to be fine and we shouldn't really be worried about it. I know that it hurt a lot of people to see ETF did not get accepted right away, but that's how it works and we should be accepting the reality instead of just moan about it. If we keep dwelling on it, then we are going to miss out, look at those big companies that put billions into bitcoin, they are not moaning and complaining, they are taking an action, so should we.

[LittleBitFunny]

This is my opinion as well. Big companies like BlackRock don't care about Bitcoin anyway. All they think about is reaping huge profits. The last thing they think about is adopting Bitcoin as it was found as a decentralized means of payment.

On the contrary, I think they will be happy (and with them the governments of course) the more and more centralized Bitcoin is, so I think the negatives of companies entering the market will be greater than the positives.

Unfortunately, not only companies, but the majority do not think about the future of Bitcoin. They only care about the high price, whatever the results.

We should not criticize companies or organizations that enter the for-profit market because we are just like them. We expect bitcoin to be more accepted and popular... this causes demand to increase while supply is limited, but ultimately we also want the price to rise to take profits.

To put it bluntly, no one will care about the future of bitcoin if it doesn't benefit us. It is the bare truth that many people are denying and trying to show that they support the bitcoin revolution without caring about their pockets.

[Doan9269]

Gold ETF cannot be compared to bitcoin ETF in many ways because anything that has to do with this kind is more conviniently done without you going through the prolonged process of KYC and regulations since bitcoin ETF will be on digital asset, we understand that they are not the same as the bitcoin we use, but the advantages i see in this Spot Bitcoin ETF is the opportunity it may helps to triggers the market value get to accomplish it's six digits target towards next year, we are not saying that Spot ETF bitcoin is what will determine that but could be part of the triggers since it has open more applicable ways for use case of bitcoin market price track for assets pegged on it.

[Wind_FURY]

I know franky1 doesn't believe it, we have debated about it before. Although he made a good point, he didn't consider the Cabal's long term, and possibly unlimited, printing of fiat.

 

On the road to $500,000.

You know how they just “raised the debt ceiling?” This isn’t true. They didn’t raise the ceiling, they eliminated it until a future date. Do you remember the last time they did that? It was august 2019. September 2019 was the repo crisis, where overnight loans on treasuries hit an annualized interest rate of 10%! And conveniently we had a reason to make money printer go BRRR in 2020.

I don’t in general like conspiracies, but with no limit on US debt, we have effectively put a blank check out there for anyone to cash if they can create the economic conditions necessary to justify massive money printing. We are incentivizing our own destruction. I wouldn’t be surprised if we have some major happen in 2024…a new pandemic with lockdowns, WW3 starting in earnest, aliens turn out to be here and not-so-friendly, etc…

No conspiracies required, the U.S. economy is in need of a "reset" because there's just too much money in circulation. I know the latest inflation prints show that disinflation is finally happening, but the data on unemployment remains very low which indicates high demand and could indicate a reinflationary event probably happening. There's also the risk of wage inflation. When - not if - it happens, the Federal Reserve would need to raise rates more aggressively. It has happened with Volcker before, it's highly probable that it will happen with Powell again.

[bitgolden]

Gold ETF cannot be compared to bitcoin ETF in many ways because anything that has to do with this kind is more conviniently done without you going through the prolonged process of KYC and regulations since bitcoin ETF will be on digital asset, we understand that they are not the same as the bitcoin we use, but the advantages i see in this Spot Bitcoin ETF is the opportunity it may helps to triggers the market value get to accomplish it's six digits target towards next year, we are not saying that Spot ETF bitcoin is what will determine that but could be part of the triggers since it has open more applicable ways for use case of bitcoin market price track for assets pegged on it.

It's not the same thing but it's also not that different neither. You can think about it how differently you want to think about it, but the end result will be the fact that we are going to see it not act differently to the markets. When it's down, both of them will  be down, and when it's up both of them will be up.

This is why I believe that we are going to end up with a result that would not make us any happier, something that would be a bit of a different situation in the end. Just make sure you are happy with what you get. If it happens, we should just focus on something that would make it work better, and that would be a situation where if anything bad happens that's going to end up being something so different eventually.

[el kaka22]

Honestly considering all these huge billionaire companies putting billions into bitcoin, it's obvious that they are going to tell others and we are going to grow thanks to that. It's simple as that, we are going to have bigger companies end up buying bitcoin as investment and keep doing that all the time and make sure that it's going to be a big deal.

Making profit is good and all, but that doesn't mean that we are not going to end up with a much profit unless we get those involved, and they are going to get involved when they see these other companies who got in with billions and made billions more. That's going to be magical for us, and will take some more time but not a ton, like maybe 10 years at most and that will be great.

[buwaytress]

Why should this be any different?

That's the point, if there are tens of billions of dollars in the bitcoin world by these giant companies, then we shouldn't be shocked that ETF is not the only thing that matters. I am not saying that ETF would not mean anything, but do not consider that as the only thing that matters neither.

I believe that we are going to be fine and we shouldn't really be worried about it. I know that it hurt a lot of people to see ETF did not get accepted right away, but that's how it works and we should be accepting the reality instead of just moan about it. If we keep dwelling on it, then we are going to miss out, look at those big companies that put billions into bitcoin, they are not moaning and complaining, they are taking an action, so should we.

Even if ETFs were to matter, they would be among the most insignificant of anything that did. I think the proof keeps showing up in the various ETF puddings, no matter the flavour.

I really feel like too much was made out of them (along with their delays and repeated applications, which, for any other financial instrument is normal, regular, and doesn't raise eyebrows).

[Wind_FURY]

Why should this be any different?

That's the point, if there are tens of billions of dollars in the bitcoin world by these giant companies, then we shouldn't be shocked that ETF is not the only thing that matters. I am not saying that ETF would not mean anything, but do not consider that as the only thing that matters neither.

I believe that we are going to be fine and we shouldn't really be worried about it. I know that it hurt a lot of people to see ETF did not get accepted right away, but that's how it works and we should be accepting the reality instead of just moan about it. If we keep dwelling on it, then we are going to miss out, look at those big companies that put billions into bitcoin, they are not moaning and complaining, they are taking an action, so should we.

Even if ETFs were to matter, they would be among the most insignificant of anything that did. I think the proof keeps showing up in the various ETF puddings, no matter the flavour.

I really feel like too much was made out of them (along with their delays and repeated applications, which, for any other financial instrument is normal, regular, and doesn't raise eyebrows).

From just a business and investment perspective, what would be the more significant investments than what BlackRock and the other asset managers are going to bring if their applications are approved? I can't think of any other unless Russia and other sanctioned countries start buying Bitcoin and HODL them in their "vaults".

[Lucius]

From just a business and investment perspective, what would be the more significant investments than what BlackRock and the other asset managers are going to bring if their applications are approved? I can't think of any other unless Russia and other sanctioned countries start buying Bitcoin and HODL them in their "vaults".

Let's hope this bold will not happen (at least not officially) because it would be the ideal vector of attacks on Bitcoin in the rest of the world. The implications that such countries would start buying larger amounts of BTC add fuel to the fire of those who want to portray BTC as something that serves these countries to avoid sanctions.

Of course Bitcoin as well as fiat can serve good as well as bad purposes, but the key difference is that the "dirty fiat" has the support of every state that issues it, while Bitcoin is exposed to attacks from all sides and practically has no adequate defense.

[Wind_FURY]

From just a business and investment perspective, what would be the more significant investments than what BlackRock and the other asset managers are going to bring if their applications are approved? I can't think of any other unless Russia and other sanctioned countries start buying Bitcoin and HODL them in their "vaults".

Let's hope this bold will not happen (at least not officially) because it would be the ideal vector of attacks on Bitcoin in the rest of the world.

Well whether that will or won't happen, it's truly out of our control. We will have our differences and our own personal opinions about it, but there's nothing that can be done about it. No one has any right to say how, or who, or where Bitcoin should be used, who should be using it, and where it should be used. Bitcoin itself is neutral.

The implications that such countries would start buying larger amounts of BTC add fuel to the fire of those who want to portray BTC as something that serves these countries to avoid sanctions.

Of course Bitcoin as well as fiat can serve good as well as bad purposes, but the key difference is that the "dirty fiat" has the support of every state that issues it, while Bitcoin is exposed to attacks from all sides and practically has no adequate defense.

I know everyone wants Bitcoin to be viewed as something as a net-good for the world, but as technically designed, what does everyone truly and honestly think could happen?

[buwaytress]

From just a business and investment perspective, what would be the more significant investments than what BlackRock and the other asset managers are going to bring if their applications are approved? I can't think of any other unless Russia and other sanctioned countries start buying Bitcoin and HODL them in their "vaults".

Why, buying actual Bitcoin and holding it. As I've mentioned many times, institutional interest from 2016 already led to huge OTC buys. Look at the famed custodians holding huge amounts on behalf of institutional. Look at Saylor, more recently. Look at the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund from a few years back.

They didn't need to sit around waiting fir ETFs (which interest short-term speculators). They went out and added actual coins to their portfolios. You don't think those are more significant than ETFs that sometimes also use derivatives? Then again. I'm no expert, just an opinion-monger ha.

[Asuspawer09]

To all those who read my opinions in different topics, you know that I'm cynical towards BlackRock's Bitcoin ETF because of the vague wording used about hard forks in their registration statement.

I want to get that out first before making the "shower thought" for the topic.

From an investment perspective, OK, I'm curious if anyone knows, when was the first modern ETF for Gold issued? Wikipedia says it was during 2003.

The first gold ETF launched was Gold Bullion Securities, which listed 28 March 2003 on the Australian Securities Exchange, by ETF Securities and its major shareholder, Graham Tuckwell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_exchange-traded_product

Zoom out Gold's chart to the maximum and look starting at 2003. Merely my two sats, but believe it will be the same for Bitcoin. It will have one of its greatest price trajectory we have ever seen during the next real bull cycle. Perhaps the same as 2015 - 2017, perhaps more?

I know franky1 doesn't believe it, we have debated about it before. Although he made a good point, he didn't consider the Cabal's long term, and possibly unlimited, printing of fiat.

 

On the road to $500,000.

I think 500,000$ is actually realistic for the next bull run, the next bitcoin halving event could easily trigger the market to skyrocket, and based on our experience with the bitcoin halving it could easily boost the market price up to 1000% easily right after the bitcoin halving, if we are going to look at the bitcoin halving timeline chart we are going to notice the price increase right after the bitcoin halving. Last 2013 when bitcoin halving happened the market price last 2011 was just around 2.54$ and skyrocket up to 1007$ which is really a lot of pumps considering that bitcoin is just a new technology. Then the next bitcoin halving skyrocket the price to 2500$ and then the next one is up to 56k$ which is really a big pump, if you're going to base our price projection on that we could easily project a 500k$ up to a million dollars, but still, there are a lot of factors that could easily affect that because that is just a lot of money that needed to be put on bitcoin to pump that price. When institutions start to invest as well I think that is what is going to trigger that.

[Lucius]

Well whether that will or won't happen, it's truly out of our control. We will have our differences and our own personal opinions about it, but there's nothing that can be done about it. No one has any right to say how, or who, or where Bitcoin should be used, who should be using it, and where it should be used. Bitcoin itself is neutral.

You are not wrong with your thinking, nor am I completely wrong, but it would be better if it did not happen in the way I described, because it would be just another angle of attack, and one that could be used on a global level. It is true that Bitcoin consumes a negligible amount of energy, of which at least 50% is from renewable sources, but this does not prevent various individuals and influential organizations from claiming the exact opposite.

I think 500,000$ is actually realistic for the next bull run, the next bitcoin halving event could easily trigger the market to skyrocket, and based on our experience with the bitcoin halving it could easily boost the market price up to 1000% easily right after the bitcoin halving, if we are going to look at the bitcoin halving timeline chart we are going to notice the price increase right after the bitcoin halving.
~snip~

There's nothing wrong with being optimistic, but even the last halving showed that the price increase has significantly decreased compared to the one in 2016 when we had a jump from $400 to even $20 000, unlike the last halving which produced only x3.5 price increase ($69 000) compared to the last ATH.

What is certainly unknown is what will happen in the event that the spot BTC ETF is approved in combination with halving, and we can only guess what impact it would have on the price. Maybe the interest will be huge and hundreds of billions will flow into these funds, and maybe what happened in other countries where such an ETF was approved will happen, or in other words one of my local sayings could be used "the hills shook, a mouse was born".

[pooya87]

I still believe that ETF effects on bitcoin price has been greatly exaggerated, although it will definitely have a positive effect on the price.

Do you believe that $500,000 per Bitcoin is merely an exaggeration by 2025 - 2026 considering Bitcoin's trajectory since 2010?

What I think is that ETF is not the only way we can reach $500k or even a million in the next couple of years although it can be a decent catalyst. In fact you should have seen my predictions a couple of years ago saying in this cycle (the one starting after 2018) price should have reached the ATH of $400k to $500k. I still believe that my prediction was correct, the only problem was the unprecedented economic events on a global scale which is what makes the prediction harder than any other time.

The context of the topic is in how Gold's ETF, during 2003, helped started a strong surge on its price, AND it's trading near its ATH despite going through different economic crashes/crises. It could probably happen for Bitcoin too after ETF approval, no?

That's True.

[Wind_FURY]

From just a business and investment perspective, what would be the more significant investments than what BlackRock and the other asset managers are going to bring if their applications are approved? I can't think of any other unless Russia and other sanctioned countries start buying Bitcoin and HODL them in their "vaults".

Why, buying actual Bitcoin and holding it. As I've mentioned many times, institutional interest from 2016 already led to huge OTC buys. Look at the famed custodians holding huge amounts on behalf of institutional. Look at Saylor, more recently. Look at the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund from a few years back.

They didn't need to sit around waiting fir ETFs (which interest short-term speculators). They went out and added actual coins to their portfolios. You don't think those are more significant than ETFs that sometimes also use derivatives? Then again. I'm no expert, just an opinion-monger ha.

I'm no expert too, I'm merely a pleb like most people in BitcoinTalk, BUT what I heard is BlackRock has ownership rights in most United States Banks, they own shares in most of U.S. Pharma and they are said to be an administrator of 10% of trading of major stocks WORLDWIDE. The total assets they manage might be half of the United States' GDP, it's said to be worth 10 Trillion United States Dollars.

BlackRock is also the biggest asset manager that owns shares in Amazon, Google, Facebook, other major tech companies, AND currently they want Bitcoin.

To $500,000?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Lucius]

~snip~

BlackRock wants to offer a spot BTC ETF to the market, which for me is something much different than the fact that they as a company have a special interest in Bitcoin or anything else except that their company increases profits. In addition, the part of their request in which they mention forks does not look the least bit friendly when it comes to Bitcoin, because they already suggest in that statement that they could choose any fork that would be more favorable for them at that moment.

Furthermore, why the fascination with the trillions of $ they manage as if all that money or at least some significant part will flow towards BTC? We can hope for some things, but we still need to be realistic and take into account the other two possible outcomes - and the first is that the SEC will not approve the ETF, and the second is that even if it is approved, it will not have too much of an effect on the BTC price.

[buwaytress]

I'm no expert too, I'm merely a pleb like most people in BitcoinTalk, BUT what I heard is BlackRock has ownership rights in most United States Banks, they own shares in most of U.S. Pharma and they are said to be an administrator of 10% of trading of major stocks WORLDWIDE. The total assets they manage might be half of the United States' GDP, it's said to be worth 10 Trillion United States Dollars.

BlackRock is also the biggest asset manager that owns shares in Amazon, Google, Facebook, other major tech companies, AND currently they want Bitcoin.

To $500,000?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Fair enough. If more people see BlackRock the same way you do and have the same level of optimism, maybe it has some addon effects I can't yet foresee nor understand. For me, at the very least, they'd need to be buying actual coin a la MicroStrategy for it to make sense to me, but still -- I can concede that at worst, it can't be bad news.

Half a mill, still too rich for me, but happy to eat my hat if that happens. Might even eat two hats.

[justdimin]

If more people see BlackRock the same way you do and have the same level of optimism, maybe it has some addon effects I can't yet foresee nor understand. For me, at the very least, they'd need to be buying actual coin a la MicroStrategy for it to make sense to me, but still -- I can concede that at worst, it can't be bad news.

Half a mill, still too rich for me, but happy to eat my hat if that happens. Might even eat two hats.

I feel like it's all about getting more attention, it could be via getting actual coins, it can be like this, it doesn't matter as long as bitcoin name is on the papers and in the news. If we can get more attention that means even the action itself may not increase the price, but the news of the action could end up causing others to join in and increase the price. That is the aim, and I believe that as long as billionaire people and companies enter the market that means that we are going to get richer.

Microstrategy is a great example, they did something and if they are example to any other company eventually that means it's a bigger impact than the money they got in with, their money caused other money to get in, and that's what matters.

[Wind_FURY]

~snip~

BlackRock wants to offer a spot BTC ETF to the market, which for me is something much different than the fact that they as a company have a special interest in Bitcoin or anything else except that their company increases profits. In addition, the part of their request in which they mention forks does not look the least bit friendly when it comes to Bitcoin, because they already suggest in that statement that they could choose any fork that would be more favorable for them at that moment.

I made these posts about the issue,

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456494.msg62417885#msg62417885

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456494.msg62452869#msg62452869

I asked in one of them what's BlackRock's stance on E.S.G. - Environmental, Social, and Governance.

What Is Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Investing?

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing refers to a set of standards for a company’s behavior used by socially conscious investors to screen potential investments.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/environmental-social-and-governance-esg-criteria.asp

Furthermore, why the fascination with the trillions of $ they manage as if all that money or at least some significant part will flow towards BTC? We can hope for some things, but we still need to be realistic and take into account the other two possible outcomes - and the first is that the SEC will not approve the ETF, and the second is that even if it is approved, it will not have too much of an effect on the BTC price.

I have no fascination. Simply noticed the large difference in networth between Chad Saylor and BlackRock. Larger networth = Possibly a larger investment into Bitcoin. It probably might be three times Saylor's investment by BlackRock? More if we consider the investments of the other major asset managers?

[savetheFORUM]

Honestly considering all these huge billionaire companies putting billions into bitcoin, it's obvious that they are going to tell others and we are going to grow thanks to that. It's simple as that, we are going to have bigger companies end up buying bitcoin as investment and keep doing that all the time and make sure that it's going to be a big deal.

Making profit is good and all, but that doesn't mean that we are not going to end up with a much profit unless we get those involved, and they are going to get involved when they see these other companies who got in with billions and made billions more. That's going to be magical for us, and will take some more time but not a ton, like maybe 10 years at most and that will be great.

Expecting the price to hit a six-digit valuation in a decade might not be a lot to ask but only if we are expecting it to hit $100k and not way high than that because for that to happen, it will take a lot of cycles to reach that as well because we can't expect the price to just keep going up, there will obviously be bear runs as well in the middle, and after every bull run, the price might go up even more and if adoption increases significantly, bear runs might not be as deep as they used to be in the past.

However, you are right that everyone, including big companies, might get interested once they see others getting profits through their investments, some of the big companies might even be making investments in the background without making it public, we never know that unless they make announcements.

[dansus021]

I respect your opinion and you have a point, but I can't entirely agree. Bitcoin is a blackhole for fiat currencies. If the Cabal behind the Central Banks print more, Bitcoin will absorb more and add to its market value. It's currently right there happening in front of us, and the ETFs will make the trajectory to six digits steeper and faster. Plus wait for QE when there's more liquidity available in the system. It might be "Oh My God It's Christmas" during March of 2025.

Wait?

Would be great right if bitcoin drive its value and more and more people join the crypto industry right or I am missing something here so in my opinion Bitcoin ETF is great but anything also has advantages and disadvantages

the big Disadvantage is those companies like BlackRock and other US companies will have the majority of Bitcoin maybe in total would be couple of percent of Bitcoin supply and the ETF buyer dont have real impact to Bitcoin world

[Lucius]

~snip~
I have no fascination. Simply noticed the large difference in networth between Chad Saylor and BlackRock. Larger networth = Possibly a larger investment into Bitcoin. It probably might be three times Saylor's investment by BlackRock? More if we consider the investments of the other major asset managers?

Of course, the difference in capital that you mention is incredible, because a few billion $ compared to $10 trillion managed by one company together with all other companies/funds make up tens of trillions of $ in value, and all this in a possible combination with investing in Bitcoin definitely tickles the imagination of anyone who thinks about it.

The question of all questions is how much interest there is in investing in Bitcoin through such funds - is it 1%, 5% or maybe even 10% - are we talking about tens, hundreds of billions of $ or even trillions of $?

[Wind_FURY]

I respect your opinion and you have a point, but I can't entirely agree. Bitcoin is a blackhole for fiat currencies. If the Cabal behind the Central Banks print more, Bitcoin will absorb more and add to its market value. It's currently right there happening in front of us, and the ETFs will make the trajectory to six digits steeper and faster. Plus wait for QE when there's more liquidity available in the system. It might be "Oh My God It's Christmas" during March of 2025.

Wait?

Would be great right if bitcoin drive its value and more and more people join the crypto industry right or I am missing something here so in my opinion Bitcoin ETF is great but anything also has advantages and disadvantages

the big Disadvantage is those companies like BlackRock and other US companies will have the majority of Bitcoin maybe in total would be couple of percent of Bitcoin supply and the ETF buyer dont have real impact to Bitcoin world

I'm tired of wasting time making the same debate like a broken record. Read the hypothesis in OP about Gold's ETF and just connect the effect of an ETF in Bitcoin's own market.

 

~snip~
I have no fascination. Simply noticed the large difference in networth between Chad Saylor and BlackRock. Larger networth = Possibly a larger investment into Bitcoin. It probably might be three times Saylor's investment by BlackRock? More if we consider the investments of the other major asset managers?

Of course, the difference in capital that you mention is incredible, because a few billion $ compared to $10 trillion managed by one company together with all other companies/funds make up tens of trillions of $ in value, and all this in a possible combination with investing in Bitcoin definitely tickles the imagination of anyone who thinks about it.

The question of all questions is how much interest there is in investing in Bitcoin through such funds - is it 1%, 5% or maybe even 10% - are we talking about tens, hundreds of billions of $ or even trillions of $?

I actually don't know, but if BlackRock was correctly and accurately described in this post, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5459385.msg62598645#msg62598645

Therefore I truly believe BlackRock will make the largest investment by an institution/asset manager in Bitcoin's history. How much is Chad Saylor's Bitcoin investment? 0.05% of Total Supply?

[justdimin]

Of course, the difference in capital that you mention is incredible, because a few billion $ compared to $10 trillion managed by one company together with all other companies/funds make up tens of trillions of $ in value, and all this in a possible combination with investing in Bitcoin definitely tickles the imagination of anyone who thinks about it.

The question of all questions is how much interest there is in investing in Bitcoin through such funds - is it 1%, 5% or maybe even 10% - are we talking about tens, hundreds of billions of $ or even trillions of $?

I feel like you do not need trillions, think about it this way, there are so many big companies out there, I mean the ones that can spend at least a billion in bitcoin, some smaller but still hundreds of millions.

If you think that 100+ companies like that all went into bitcoin around the same time, not at the same day, but like within the same month, the price won't be six digits? I mean that's tens of billions of dollars all go into bitcoin in a single month, maybe even close to 100+ billion dollars going into it in a month. I could see it reach to a million price. One of the main reasons would be there wouldn't be that much resistance neither, there are some here where we are, but not any higher levels have that kind of resistance.

[Wong Gendheng]

6 digit or $ 100k is certainly not difficult to achieve, and in my opinion $ 100k is difficult to occur in a short time, it may take at least 3 years and halving day that will occur in 2024 can be a measure of whether $ 100k or 6 digits take longer time or not.

[traderethereum]

6 digit or $ 100k is certainly not difficult to achieve, and in my opinion $ 100k is difficult to occur in a short time, it may take at least 3 years and halving day that will occur in 2024 can be a measure of whether $ 100k or 6 digits take longer time or not.

It's still difficult, especially at a time like this when the price of bitcoin is again being tested.
Let's hope that it doesn't take bitcoin at least 3 years to start increasing and hopefully, early next year can be the right time for bitcoin to reach $60k again.
And then, the bitcoin price can start another bull run until it hits $100k or higher.
But the truth is we will not know when the bitcoin price can touch $ 100k in the next year, in 2 years, or even in 3 years.
And we can only wait while preparing ourselves by having more bitcoins.

[Lucius]

I feel like you do not need trillions, think about it this way, there are so many big companies out there, I mean the ones that can spend at least a billion in bitcoin, some smaller but still hundreds of millions.

If you think that 100+ companies like that all went into bitcoin around the same time, not at the same day, but like within the same month, the price won't be six digits? I mean that's tens of billions of dollars all go into bitcoin in a single month, maybe even close to 100+ billion dollars going into it in a month. I could see it reach to a million price. One of the main reasons would be there wouldn't be that much resistance neither, there are some here where we are, but not any higher levels have that kind of resistance.

So you start from the assumption that all these companies will invest in Bitcoin at some point (perhaps when the spot BTC ETF is approved), and from 2009 until now they have not done so, even though there are no obstacles to it? What are the chances for such a scenario?

Of course, if something like that were to happen (for some reason), then only the sky is the limit - but here we are talking about a radical turn from thinking "We are not interested in Bitcoin" to "Let's invest $500 million or $1 billion in BTC".

~snip~
Therefore I truly believe BlackRock will make the largest investment by an institution/asset manager in Bitcoin's history. How much is Chad Saylor's Bitcoin investment? 0.05% of Total Supply?

The first question is whether BR will get approval for that ETF at all, and the second, if it gets it, will their clients be interested in investing in BTC? What if the interest for that ETF is similar or only slightly higher than that shown by investors for futures BTC ETF?

In my opinion, it is wrong to assume that they will invest the most just because they have the most assets under management.

[RewFrew]

I also think bitcoin price will hit six digit. But for it we have to wait more times. I think for six digit touch need minimum 2/3 years. We saw in 2021 bitcoin price hit $69k but after that bitcoin price fall and again came $15k. Now started to increase bitcoin price. Now bitcoin price moving near about $30k. I think within 2024-2025 bitcoin price again hit $69k. Then within one year bitcoin price will touch $100k. So my thinking we have to wait 2-3 years to hit six digit Bitcoin price. But my thinking When bitcoin price will hit $100k after that bitcoin price will increase speedily.

[Wind_FURY]

~snip~
Therefore I truly believe BlackRock will make the largest investment by an institution/asset manager in Bitcoin's history. How much is Chad Saylor's Bitcoin investment? 0.05% of Total Supply?

The first question is whether BR will get approval for that ETF at all, and the second, if it gets it, will their clients be interested in investing in BTC? What if the interest for that ETF is similar or only slightly higher than that shown by investors for futures BTC ETF?

In my opinion, it is wrong to assume that they will invest the most just because they have the most assets under management.

Needless to say, yes that's true, but that's for another discussion. I'm talking about BlackRock's company size, the volume and depth of their investments worldwide, and their history. If we take all that into consideration, they could build a larger stake than Chad Saylor.

How much larger is BlackRock as a company compared to MicroStrategy? When I was doing my research on that, I found out that BlackRock owns 8.1% of MicroStrategy.

https://fintel.io/so/us/mstr/blackrock

[Lucius]

~snip~
How much larger is BlackRock as a company compared to MicroStrategy? When I was doing my research on that, I found out that BlackRock owns 8.1% of MicroStrategy.

There is no doubt that BR is an incomparably larger company that is also globally positioned and, if I remember correctly, has offices in 30 countries and provides services in around 100 countries around the world. But it doesn't make much sense to compare BlackRock and MicroStrategy because they are two completely different business models, and Saylor is still one of the people who has the biggest influence in the company and is also completely crazy about Bitcoin.

I assume that BlackRock does not just go in this direction without having insight into the wishes of its clients, but we cannot know how much of an effect it will actually cause.

[Wind_FURY]

~snip~
How much larger is BlackRock as a company compared to MicroStrategy? When I was doing my research on that, I found out that BlackRock owns 8.1% of MicroStrategy.

There is no doubt that BR is an incomparably larger company that is also globally positioned and, if I remember correctly, has offices in 30 countries and provides services in around 100 countries around the world. But it doesn't make much sense to compare BlackRock and MicroStrategy because they are two completely different business models, and Saylor is still one of the people who has the biggest influence in the company and is also completely crazy about Bitcoin.

I assume that BlackRock does not just go in this direction without having insight into the wishes of its clients, but we cannot know how much of an effect it will actually cause.

But ser, knowing BlackRock's potentially huge effect in any investment it tries to get into, do you actually believe that with their size, they would just merely be a minor player in the Bitcoin ETF Market? I personally believe they won't, but that's just a matter of opinion, I could be wrong. But just from an investment perspective, hopefully proven right.

[19Nov16]

In my opinion Six Digit can occur in 2024 or next year of course with a note that the end of the year can reach at least $ 70K, as we know that in 2024 there will be Halving Day which will usually make demand increase so that it makes prices easy to skyrocket.

[348Judah]

6 digit or $ 100k is certainly not difficult to achieve, and in my opinion $ 100k is difficult to occur in a short time, it may take at least 3 years and halving day that will occur in 2024 can be a measure of whether $ 100k or 6 digits take longer time or not.

The target for this six digit move is after this next halving which i believe that having an experience in such direction couldn't be a thing of delay any longer within the space interval of four years through which halving takes places, it is believed also that bitcoin will surge more than $100,000 in this coming year ahead the $68,000 all time high it has ever achieved, let's see how this gets unfolds the more we are getting closer to halving.

[Joshapat]

I think 6 digits can occur in 2024 when there is a halving day, of course the increase at the halving day depends on the price at the beginning of the year, if it is still below $ 30k like now then I think 6 digits will take another 3 or 4 years, of course we hope the price soon reached 6 digits but seeing the market situation, we must always be realistic.

[savetheFORUM]

I think 6 digits can occur in 2024 when there is a halving day, of course the increase at the halving day depends on the price at the beginning of the year, if it is still below $ 30k like now then I think 6 digits will take another 3 or 4 years, of course we hope the price soon reached 6 digits but seeing the market situation, we must always be realistic.

The market will most probably start recovering before the halving event occurs, and after the halving event, the price will keep going up since it will be in the bull run. I'm not sure if we will see it hitting six digits or not in this cycle, but I'm pretty sure that we will see it going above the previous all-time high which was $69k, and for that, the price will need to start recovering pretty quickly after the halving so that it can take it's time before the cycle starting to reverse.

A lot of people are too optimistic thinking that the price of Bitcoin will surely go above $100k this time around, but I'm not really feeling that, to be honest. I feel that we might go above $80k or something but the cycle will end there and the price will start going down again at that point.