Bitcoin - The road to a SIX DIGIT price valuation

[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.