A 100x from here would put Bitcoin’s market cap at $130T, or 14.44% of global wealth (in 2024 dollars.) That price of $6.6M/BTC would actually buy you slightly more than $6.6M worth of stuff, in today’s dollars. Why? Because some of the monetary premium of stuff you would buy (mainly houses, but also yield bearing equities and bonds) was sucked up by Bitcoin to get it to 14.44%. As you can see in the chart, the difference between the nominal price and purchasing power increases exponentially as Bitcoin becomes a greater share of total global wealth. What will Bitcoin’s final equilibrium share of total global wealth be? It’s anyone’s guess. Saylor thinks 50%, which I think is very logical and a good lower bound. Personally, I think it will be even higher because of not just the grotesque amount of leverage that props up real estate ($330T) and equity values ($115T) that will get flushed out, but bonds ($300T) and base money ($120T) getting marked down by say -80%. 70% is a particularly romantic target because that would be $ to sat parity, or $100M/BTC in today’s purchasing power, despite only a $30M/BTC price. What do you think Bitcoin’s final equilibrium share will be and why? image

Replies (12)

Why aren’t you considering the fact that this global wealth is increasing at 15%-20% annually. So by the time #bitcoin achieves 50-60% of the global economy, what would be the total global wealth?
I think it can only go to 100%. Because everything will become nonsensical to hold as a store of value to the point it won't even serve the purpose of transfer of value.
I ₿elieve ₿itcoin will not ₿e priced in denominations of dollars. Rather energy will be priced in microsats as everything falls in value relative to an exponentially hardening money. And we will come to realize that we never had real money until ₿itcoin was discovered. We will live in a scifi like deflationary world where cheap teslabots, powered by AI do all work ₿ut the productivity gains will ₿e distributed fairly among free people - the ₿itcoin adopters. There will be human slaves still clinging to dollar denominated UBI political currency and working ever increasingly meaningless government jobs. They will only touch microsats in a ₿lack Market economy for which they will do whatever is necessary to obtain these microsats.
Things don’t have to be a “store of value” per say to have value. Ex. houses will still be worth something, but their price will drop nearer to their *utility* value because, to your point, nearly 100% of all *monetary* value will be eaten by Bitcoin.
Right but isn't that global wealth that is currently denominated in FIAT. If there is one currency then it all needs to have a currency denomination.
Unless we are going back to a barter system. Which may happen if everything gets tokenized. That seems like a regression to me and people won't embrace it.