Bitcoin - The road to a SIX DIGIT price valuation

[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.

[1714307356]

1714307356

[1714307356]

1714307356

[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".