Thought Experiment: Bitcoin falls to $1000. I think it would recover.

[Minor Miner]

I'm not sure in the early days when I was still not yet into Bitcoin. But that seems to be a fact that it really hasn't went down 99% from the ATH prices that it has been.

Despite that there's a global turmoil, people still believe that it's possible to see it go down to zero. Although they have to consider that there are lost bitcoins forever where it has kept its value and market cap on them so, it's not going to zero.

Well, technically you are right, but I think there are two different things mixed up here: the existence of bitcoin and its market price.  The fact that millions of bitcoins are locked away forever (those famous "lost" coins) doesnt actually guarantee that the price cannot fall to zero.  If no one in the world wants to buy the rest of the coins in circulation anymore, the market cap theoretically disappears, regardless of how many coins are "burned".

Just to be clear, Im not saying that such a doomsday scenario will ever happen, but its possible.  For example, what do you think would happen if someone discovered a technical flaw or something else that could put everyones wallet at risk of unauthorized access?

Exactly. The price of Bitcoin is determined by supply and demand, not just by the supply. No matter how scarce the supply is, if demand disappear and capital stop flowing into the market, it is entirely possible for bitcoin to fall to zero. That's why many shitcoin have a smaller supply than bitcoin but have never been able to achieve equivalent value or status.

Scarcity creates no value without trust and demand.

[JaanusRaim]

If Bitcoin falls to 1000 usd (without change in fundamental value), it is a remarkable investment opportunity but not an excellent one. This situation seems better than it really is because we are at the moment and have already been in many years in BTC strong overvaluation region.... 1000 usd/BTC means very big (ca 70x) price decreases from todays price level but at the same time only about one order of magnitude undervaluation.
One order of magnitude (10x) undervaluation or overvaluation is quite usual in crypto world. The 126 000 usd/BTC was even a bit more out of balance if my calculations were right....

The main problem is - and unfortunately not only in the context of this thread - that we always handle the present situation (though it can be hugely out of equilibrium) as "normal" and judge all other potential and real states in relation of that "normality".

If BTC falls below 1000 usd, the really great opportunities are in the altcoins.

[Rustam Meraj]

Exactly. The price of Bitcoin is determined by supply and demand, not just by the supply. No matter how scarce the supply is, if demand disappear and capital stop flowing into the market, it is entirely possible for bitcoin to fall to zero. That's why many shitcoin have a smaller supply than bitcoin but have never been able to achieve equivalent value or status.

Scarcity creates no value without trust and demand.

Although there is still 1 million BTC to be mined during next century, current price is 68,400 which is far lower than prices were in 2025 due to normal buyer need moving towards AI stocks and bonds. ETFs offer some steadiness but many of rare small tokens already reached close to zero values since they did not have enough trust and use to be wanted.

I think that real value of Bitcoin lies in that it has unbreakable security system, and not only its limited number and in the case that that safety was broken, limit would stop mattering.
Still, your view is just as right as it used to be, limited supply on its own is just fuel, and price cannot be pushed unless it is moved by need.

[Satofan44]

All you need is 2-3 high ranking billionaires to believe in the rebound scenario to capture a lot of it when it is near the bottom.

This is of course always a possibility. But one billionaire is as likely to capture the same amount of BTC as a million of "average Joes" who put $1000 each. And a "broad adoption" would mean more than a million people for me.

If you want to be honest about this, the likelihood of a million average joes buying in with $1000 in a scenario where Bitcoin has collapsed from $124k to $1000 compared to 2-3 billionaires doing it is extremely less likely. Most of these people act purely on emotion and propaganda, and even those that believe that they are doing some kind of analysis or call themselves investors are extremely biased with the news that they receive. I follow behavior and sentiment analysis in this space closely, therefore out of the 2 options I will stick with the billionaires one having a higher chance. Therefore, I don't really agree that this would lead to a Wall Street exit and anyway were we to experience a real recovery (under whatever scenario and conditions, ranging from very swift to very slow) then there's nothing really stopping them from coming back at similar prices or even cheaper than they did this time around. Or is there?

Think about this. Average Joe really had a very long time period to accumulate Bitcoin at various cheap prices before Wall Street came in. They had their chance, they had a generous amount of time and they failed. Now you mean to say were they given a second chance that they would do better? I mean to argue that they would act exactly the same under similar conditions, and even worse under the conditions proposed here. Many people would realize their losses on the way down to $1k, very few of those Joe would be back on the rebound. This is also one of the reasons why shitcoins are suffering so much in this cycle. Too many overt and covert scams and financial loss, the belief is gone and it is not coming back any time soon. We are different from shitcoins, but many average Joe's do not understand or see that -- so do not use that as a counterargument.  I am talking about it from the perspective of what goes on in the head of these Joe's.

I don't think this comparison can be made directly, because Monero has specific uses and a specific community that is focused on such things. The constitution of their primary user base is completely different than that found in Bitcoin, furthermore it offers more advantages to continue functioning in the decentralized sphere.

There a lot of projects of this kind in the Bitcoin sphere too. And almost all decentralized Monero services also support Bitcoin. Take also the CoinJoin/PayJoin scene. A lot of Bitcoin OGs love these things. And Taproot was conceived with decentralized platforms and P2P contracts in mind.

For me the problem isn't the lack of activity in the "decentralized Bitcoin" sphere. It's the framing done by the mainstream media, including crypto mainstream media, who make many people believe that Saylor, or even Trump, are more important for Bitcoin's wellbeing than CoinJoins, BitVM, Lightning, Ark, or Taproot contracts.

But the example you bring up also confirms my point. People that do use Monero or understand it too are not going to be the types that are phased by such manipulations. In Bitcoin we have many average joe people who are easily manipulated by these kinds of news. This is why I say that a direct comparison is not very accurate. It's as if you're comparing a group of Linux nerds to ChromeOS users or whatever that shit system was called.  

I mean if someone would just go the optimistic way of thinking and say that Bitcoin would survive in any case, both a crash to $1000 and a 51% attack then they would just be naively delusional.

Grin was 51% attacked and fell 95%+ too, but some knowledgeable people are still believing it's an interesting altcoin and could become a major one in the future once the centralized shitcoin dust settles. I'm a bit in doubt but don't consider that scenario impossible.

I know, I shouldn't compare Bitcoin to altcoins. But they are the asset class with the biggest similarity "in character" to Bitcoin. What must happen however is a plausible security strategy ensuring that the 51% risk is low after the attack. If there are doubts about that, recovery may be difficult.

If it survives as some tech nerd niche, it has objectively failed by all metrics and can be declared really dead for the first time.

I'm not even sure about that. Bitcoin is imo one of the few assets that always could recover, from any dump of any character. Because there's no juridic entity linked directly to it. At its core, it's just a P2P software protocol, which can be improved if some flaw is found.

I think you are being a bit too idealistic and biased here. If a company like Apple crashed 99.9%, and from let's say from the current user base down to the last 10 users you among many others would proclaim it dead. If Bitcoin did the same, you want to argue that it wouldn't be dead. Don't do that. For all practical purposes, if it contracts by such an amount in terms of value, users, security, it is dead even if it is still running on some nerds' computers. While semantically correct that as long as 2 devices are running and connected to each other, and there's at least 1 miner in there it would not be dead -- this is meaningless for the overall world. Otherwise you would start to sound as one of those spammers that Bitcoin can't be killed by anything because it is decentralized.  

[Iranus]

If BTC falls below 1000 usd, the really great opportunities are in the altcoins.

In my opinion, if Bitcoin drops to $1k, the crypto industry will completely collapse, and then it will become an extremely risky asset, not an opportunity. Even with Bitcoin, investing in it required careful consideration and caution, let alone investing in altcoins at that time.

If that were to happen, I believe people's primary concern would no longer be profit or seeking opportunities. What people will be interested in is whether the cryptocurrency industry can survive.

[Pandu Geddon]

In my opinion, if Bitcoin drops to $1k, the crypto industry will completely collapse, and then it will become an extremely risky asset, not an opportunity. Even with Bitcoin, investing in it required careful consideration and caution, let alone investing in altcoins at that time.

If that were to happen, I believe people's primary concern would no longer be profit or seeking opportunities. What people will be interested in is whether the cryptocurrency industry can survive.

With so many people suffering losses, not only individuals but also institutions that use Bitcoin as their reserve asset, trust can turn into doubt and concern in such a situation. How large exchanges will survive in such circumstances is still uncertain. Hopefully, the scenario of Bitcoin dropping back to $1k will never happen. That could become the worst situation in the history of the crypto market.

[Agbe]

Would Bitcoin recover?

Yes definitely Bitcoin will recover and beat the last time All Time High amount. I have made the analysis https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5576488.msg66477410#msg66477410 and break down how it will happen. Bitcoin is something that we can't predict just like that but we made the analysis base on the 4 years cycle of the coin. You can take a spare time and check the link to see the analysis.

[STT]

Since Dollar isnt the hard currency of even the 80's or 90's and it wasnt perfect then yes, theres no way it stays at 1000 like thats a wall.  Even with challenges we're talking ongoing daily cumulative effect, then Dollar is in decline and BTC has a usage case with the ability to adapt positively.  

  The problem dollar has in its a negative overhang from debt is not one off its iterative, its governed by politics not good sense.   If a Volcker FED chief appears or the very doubtful scenario of a political movement to restore sensible economics then I will totally change my mind but it seems impossible vs the far more obvious default situation being more likely.

  Either its a slow default (soft), the deliberate policy of 2% inflation is the nice face with the reality being a very possible absolute default and chaos basically.  People under rate and don't expect its quite real, the nation is very productive, capable but suppressed by the awful dollar situation imo.
  Swap in Euro or Yen or many other currencies and its either similar or even worse. FIAT has horrible problems, I have to believe Satoshi had that foresight to realize BTC is the life boat that had to be put into the world so that ordinary people have at least some chance.
  

[jostorres]

With so many people suffering losses, not only individuals but also institutions that use Bitcoin as their reserve asset, trust can turn into doubt and concern in such a situation. How large exchanges will survive in such circumstances is still uncertain. Hopefully, the scenario of Bitcoin dropping back to $1k will never happen. That could become the worst situation in the history of the crypto market.

I think bitcoin is something that gives people some trust and that would be the most important difference maker. I think there are way too many people in bitcoin world that cares about it too much to let it be that low and we would all be buying and then not let it happen.

We should consider this to be something that would not be possible and we could definitely see bitcoin be a lot higher very quickly, like bounce back up like a needle drop type of thing and be a lot better for us again quickly. So there is nothing that could be bad for us, we would all just be buying bitcoin in bulk for discounted price and for that reason it is going to be not a bad deal and we could be making a lot better returns for the best case.

[Smack That Ace]

Would Bitcoin recover?

Yes definitely Bitcoin will recover and beat the last time All Time High amount. I have made the analysis https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5576488.msg66477410#msg66477410 and break down how it will happen. Bitcoin is something that we can't predict just like that but we made the analysis base on the 4 years cycle of the coin. You can take a spare time and check the link to see the analysis.

The OP's full question is whether Bitcoin will recover if it drops to $1k? He is not asking whether it will recover given the current situation. And as some others have pointed out, if bitcoin drops to $1k, that would mean it has fallen more than 99% from its peak.

Of course, like many others, I did not think that would happen. But let's assume that happens. I'm a bit skeptical that Bitcoin will be able to recover, let alone reach a new all time high.

[Agbe]

if it drops to $1k? He is not asking whether it will recover given the current situation.

That is the horror bear market. The number of bitcoin left in the Blockchain is not much again for bitcoin to decline to that amount. And one thing we have to know is that bitcoin is not a scheme but a digital currency which can be used to buy things and pay for service, therefore I don't see bitcoin going to that amount of $1k. But in assumption, if it happens, it will still recover again because it is not a scheme but a currency as I said.

[blomen]

in my opinion, for most cryptocurrencies, there are points where the coin becomes affordable, meaning it's cheap, when the price drops by a certain amount. but if the decline exceeds the limit, if there's a much greater drop than it should be, then it's time to get out.

in this scenario, the easiest coins to completely exit are the newest projects, perhaps coins that have been in the spotlight for a few months or weeks. for these, even in the simplest dangerous scenario, the logical move would be to sell everything you have.

however, the situation may not be the same for bitcoin, ethereum, and certain major altcoins. for bitcoin, even dropping to $10 from here wouldn't be enough to say its time is completely over, because it came from $10 to where it is now years ago. if it drops to $1,000, some things will fundamentally change for bitcoin, but i still think it could recover.

[Swordsoffreedom]

for bitcoin, even dropping to $10 from here wouldn't be enough to say its time is completely over, because it came from $10 to where it is now years ago. if it drops to $1,000, some things will fundamentally change for bitcoin, but i still think it could recover.

That will depend. There is no guarantee that it will recover if it drops to $1,000

Bitcoin could rise from $1 to $10, and from $10 to $100k, thanks to strong belief from the community and institution. This mean that if Bitcoin drops to $1,000, it would signify that people's confidence in Bitcoin has been severely damaged. Once confidence is lost, it will be very difficult for BTC to recover.

Bitcoin will never fall below $1,000 if people consistently have strong faith in it, and vice versa, IMO

[Lucius]

My opinion is that the price would recover, but it would be very questionable how long it would take to reach $10k, let alone something more than that. Confidence would be extremely shaken, so although some would see it as an opportunity, many would be extremely disappointed and would no longer consider it meaningful to invest in BTC.

Considering what the OP stated as possible reasons that something like this could happen, I come to the conclusion that the big players could be the ones who will one day create chaos on the market. I hope it will be many years before something like that happens, and even better if it never happens.

[Smack That Ace]

if it drops to $1k? He is not asking whether it will recover given the current situation.

That is the horror bear market. The number of bitcoin left in the Blockchain is not much again for bitcoin to decline to that amount. And one thing we have to know is that bitcoin is not a scheme but a digital currency which can be used to buy things and pay for service, therefore I don't see bitcoin going to that amount of $1k. But in assumption, if it happens, it will still recover again because it is not a scheme but a currency as I said.

If that happens, it would not be a bear market, but rather a sign of the end for the crypto industry, IMO.
I agree that Bitcoin is not and will never be a scam because it was created with a clear mission and purpose. So if Bitcoin suddenly dropped to $1,000, or could not continue to exist, I would call that a failure.

I do not know if Bitcoin could recover if that happened. But think about it, if Bitcoin really had potential and people still believed in it, why did it lose 99% of its value?

[Nathrixxx]

When you see bitcoin attaining the level of $126,000 all-time high and still fall down to $1,000 then be rest assured that there is probability back later in the future, all we may needed to do is to hold and patiently wait till the season to rise will come, moreover in reality, we can expect that bitcoin should Fall to this stage, but when it happens with altcoin in such manner, then we should already know that there is fire on the mountain.

[d5000]

If you want to be honest about this, the likelihood of a million average joes buying in with $1000 in a scenario where Bitcoin has collapsed from $124k to $1000 compared to 2-3 billionaires doing it is extremely less likely.

I think this is speculative and thus we should treat it as 50:50 likelihood as long as we don't have hard data. A million isn't really much (it's about 1-2% of the current Bitcoin user base, and we can count CEX users here because they do also move the price).

Therefore, I don't really agree that this would lead to a Wall Street exit and anyway were we to experience a real recovery (under whatever scenario and conditions, ranging from very swift to very slow) then there's nothing really stopping them from coming back at similar prices or even cheaper than they did this time around. Or is there?

The "Wall Street exit scenario" is based on the idea of bankruptcies of treasury companies like Strategy. It would become more difficult to raise capital for such endeavours after a mass bankruptcy event. It is likely that some companies would be able to stock up Bitcoin at these prices. But I can't imagine pension funds risking to enter BTC for example in such a situation. So the Wall Street re-entry would probably be less massive than the exit.

Think about this. Average Joe really had a very long time period to accumulate Bitcoin at various cheap prices before Wall Street came in. They had their chance, they had a generous amount of time and they failed. Now you mean to say were they given a second chance that they would do better?

Why did they "fail"? Because adoption is still not at 50%? I can't imagine a much better adoption scenario as the one we had, given the high volatility with several ~80% crashes.

I also don't expect the Average Joes will "do better" really down in the $1000 hell. However, during the recovery (i.e. when it becomes likely that the bottom held) I expect a faster accumulation by these people. Bitcoin is already known, people know that it can make you rich. And I've heard many times people whine about missed chances. Not everybody who whined in the past will take their chance at $1000 or $3000, but some will.

I mean to argue that they would act exactly the same under similar conditions, and even worse under the conditions proposed here. Many people would realize their losses on the way down to $1k, very few of those Joe would be back on the rebound. This is also one of the reasons why shitcoins are suffering so much in this cycle. Too many overt and covert scams and financial loss, the belief is gone and it is not coming back any time soon. We are different from shitcoins, but many average Joe's do not understand or see that -- so do not use that as a counterargument.  I am talking about it from the perspective of what goes on in the head of these Joe's.

I also expect many Joes to sell in that bear market. If there were no panic sales, then bankruptcies would not be enough to crash Bitcoin down to $1000.

But if they see the $1000 bottom holds, then I expect a re-entry of many. Not at $1000 - the bottom is very likely defined by wealthier individuals -, but perhaps at $2000. This is based, for example, on what I read in this forum after drastic crashes. At the bottom, everybody still talks about selling. While in the first stages of recovery everybody seems to buy again.

And the counterargument that Bitcoin is different than shitcoins is valid, I think. But much depends on the general education level about Bitcoin when that drastic crash happens. The positivie thing is that even Bitcoin speculation-focused influencers regularly talk about decentralization and its advantages, and thus I expect that from those Joes interested specifically in Bitcoin (and not in ETH and friends) a big part know the difference.

But the example you bring up also confirms my point. People that do use Monero or understand it too are not going to be the types that are phased by such manipulations. In Bitcoin we have many average joe people who are easily manipulated by these kinds of news. This is why I say that a direct comparison is not very accurate. It's as if you're comparing a group of Linux nerds to ChromeOS users or whatever that shit system was called.

We were talking about the dependency on services like CEX here, not about the average joes' sentiment. My argument was simply: Decentralized services exist already, like in the Monero community. They can replace centralized services in most fields (if not all) and thus purely for the Bitcoin functionality it would not matter much if we lose lots of CEXes in such a crash.

I think you are being a bit too idealistic and biased here. If a company like Apple crashed 99.9%, and from let's say from the current user base down to the last 10 users you among many others would proclaim it dead. If Bitcoin did the same, you want to argue that it wouldn't be dead. [...] Otherwise you would start to sound as one of those spammers that Bitcoin can't be killed by anything because it is decentralized.  

I don't agree that the last argument is a "spammer" argument. It has a real core.

Why can an asset fail completely and go to zero? For me there are two reasons:

- The asset is no longer needed by anyone (or by significant groups), for example because a better technology exists.
- The asset is issued by a centralized entity and that entity disappears/goes bankrupt. The asset then is discontinued, and its value will be extremely low at its last trading day.

The second argument is the one where the "Bitcoin is a protocol" argument applies. It makes up the difference to any company stock (your Apple example), but also to shitcoins, where such a centralized entity exists normally, and if it disappears, then the shitcoin will crash to near-death as it is associated with that entity. While in the case of Bitcoin, no entity has really managed it or benefitted from it in a disproportionate way (of course some benefitted more than others, but there's no central management and the main beneficiaries can't be really identified). So if any new use case appears, the protocol could be simply used again, and thus Bitcoin could recover. (In theory this can also happen to most shitcoins, but the likelihood is very low, as their success is very much tied to their issuer entity.)

Note that the argument in that section is not "it _will_ recover" but it "_could_" recover. The new use cases and user bases must exist. But there is no reason why such a recovery would be impossible.

So the one argument that could really crash Bitcoin down to zero without possibility of recovery is the "no longer needed" argument. This could be the case if there's a better technology, for example a Bitcoin-like money without the need for Proofs of Work. But even then Bitcoin could adopt the technology probably. The second possibility is more "terminal": a post-scarcity society without the need for any type of "money". Quite far away imo at least, perhaps completely impossible.

[uneng]

A 1000$ dip would be very dangerous for Bitcoin sustainability and long term perspectives. I guess the price would still recover to superior ranges, but the chances new ATHs could be reached would be small. The trust would be broken, and many investors would be quite fearful of going for Bitcoin once again with the same faith they had before. For me a 1000$ dip signs it's not a reliable investment, as speculation has finally become the major determining force in action here.

Meanwhile, investors would be already focused in another niches of financial market with their funds, especially the whales.

[Satofan44]

If you want to be honest about this, the likelihood of a million average joes buying in with $1000 in a scenario where Bitcoin has collapsed from $124k to $1000 compared to 2-3 billionaires doing it is extremely less likely.

I think this is speculative and thus we should treat it as 50:50 likelihood as long as we don't have hard data. A million isn't really much (it's about 1-2% of the current Bitcoin user base, and we can count CEX users here because they do also move the price).

Perhaps, but average Joe trades on emotions and are easily manipulated. Therefore I do not give them as much credit as you do. I believe that in such a scenario we would see a complete collapse in belief, with mostly maxis remaining.

The "Wall Street exit scenario" is based on the idea of bankruptcies of treasury companies like Strategy. It would become more difficult to raise capital for such endeavours after a mass bankruptcy event. It is likely that some companies would be able to stock up Bitcoin at these prices. But I can't imagine pension funds risking to enter BTC for example in such a situation. So the Wall Street re-entry would probably be less massive than the exit.

Fair enough, but why would this be a good thing?   Bitcoin is for everyone, including that that we may not like.

Why did they "fail"? Because adoption is still not at 50%? I can't imagine a much better adoption scenario as the one we had, given the high volatility with several ~80% crashes.

But you are the one talking about the adoption of wall street here and making a case for their exit, therefore you are trying to imply that average Joe has not adopted it enough i.e. has failed. But anyway, I do consider them to have failed. Very few average Joe's have Bitcoin, even fewer understand the basics, very few understand it fully -- after more than a decade, average Joe has failed.

I also don't expect the Average Joes will "do better" really down in the $1000 hell. However, during the recovery (i.e. when it becomes likely that the bottom held) I expect a faster accumulation by these people. Bitcoin is already known, people know that it can make you rich. And I've heard many times people whine about missed chances. Not everybody who whined in the past will take their chance at $1000 or $3000, but some will.

If that be so, why are they not doing it with cycles? Don't tell me $1000 is some psychological number because that argument I have always seen as bullshit. It is arbitrary and has not been proven in any objective way.

But if they see the $1000 bottom holds, then I expect a re-entry of many. Not at $1000 - the bottom is very likely defined by wealthier individuals -, but perhaps at $2000. This is based, for example, on what I read in this forum after drastic crashes. At the bottom, everybody still talks about selling. While in the first stages of recovery everybody seems to buy again.

Back to the same question why they are not already doing it with the crashes that we have as asked above.  

But the example you bring up also confirms my point. People that do use Monero or understand it too are not going to be the types that are phased by such manipulations. In Bitcoin we have many average joe people who are easily manipulated by these kinds of news. This is why I say that a direct comparison is not very accurate. It's as if you're comparing a group of Linux nerds to ChromeOS users or whatever that shit system was called.

We were talking about the dependency on services like CEX here, not about the average joes' sentiment. My argument was simply: Decentralized services exist already, like in the Monero community. They can replace centralized services in most fields (if not all) and thus purely for the Bitcoin functionality it would not matter much if we lose lots of CEXes in such a crash.

We were, but didn't I then interject that it can not be directly compared because the communities are extremely different. Those services are much more easily to adopt within the Monero community because it consists of people who are more familiar with them or have a more direct need of them. The same can't be said about Bitcoin, otherwise we would have such adoption too but we don't.

The second argument is the one where the "Bitcoin is a protocol" argument applies. It makes up the difference to any company stock (your Apple example), but also to shitcoins, where such a centralized entity exists normally, and if it disappears, then the shitcoin will crash to near-death as it is associated with that entity. While in the case of Bitcoin, no entity has really managed it or benefitted from it in a disproportionate way (of course some benefitted more than others, but there's no central management and the main beneficiaries can't be really identified). So if any new use case appears, the protocol could be simply used again, and thus Bitcoin could recover. (In theory this can also happen to most shitcoins, but the likelihood is very low, as their success is very much tied to their issuer entity.)

You are too focused on an idealistic position, because it is a protocol it can't die. That is useless in the practical real world, that is what I have been trying to tell you. If Bitcoin loses 99.9% of its users, Bitcoin has died. No amount of attachment, idealistic positions, semantic definitions of death and protocols change that. Can it recover? Absolutely, it does not become impossible. Is it still dead? It absolutely fucking is. Do you have issues dealing with human impermanence and death too? Perhaps a question for another thread in another section.   Embrace the word Death.

So the one argument that could really crash Bitcoin down to zero without possibility of recovery is the "no longer needed" argument. This could be the case if there's a better technology, for example a Bitcoin-like money without the need for Proofs of Work. But even then Bitcoin could adopt the technology probably. The second possibility is more "terminal": a post-scarcity society without the need for any type of "money". Quite far away imo at least, perhaps completely impossible.

This part I can agree with.

[STT]

Price doesn't determine an absolute truth on Bitcoin.  Its been 1000 before, was recent enough I can remember it and I even remember the apathy at the hundreds.  The most morose subdued market I can remember was actually after getting to 1000 but then selling off, it might have been down 80% for some people not all.
  It took some time, alot of volume and new users, but I was an 'old' user in a minor way, many stayed and found usage ; that's how recovery occurs & the regular usage is superior to plain big numbers.

Change the zeros involved its not far off this supposed scenario and it might feel negative but its not linear, or simple or absolute.  We are talking about the label someone pinned onto the BTC asset, even if the market agrees on that price its not suddenly with absolute certainty or accuracy.

If we swap volatility for the word accuracy it might bring more sense to people to consider.  BTC is volatile we know this, it jumps around and the peaks are savage builds higher, hence alot of overly positive people or hype.
  The peaks arent accurate, volatility you like doesn't make it some solid beam of strength that will always be there.  By its nature the most rapid price changes in BTC especially are easily lost, its far more boring to consider but a sell can help to build strength, so long as we're building volume its a good process.