Nostr Web Client

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? nostr:note1qkcwfucv54036w2uv3kchdf4tzupfexns25dmnsu9j7x7lej6neqdxezg5

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

BHAVIK 1y ago

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?

Shawn 1y ago

I’m here for it.

FYI: seems your LN address is down.

Toxic Bitcoiner 1y ago

Where were you sending from, Primal?

Jason the Original 1y ago

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.

Delta, Dirac 1y ago

If it were 100% the value of the world would be 0% and therefore bitcoin would be 0 as well (because literally everything would be 0) and all life in that moment would cease, as you could not even buy a single laptop to keep bitcoin running. It is not well communicated in the original tweet, but this is similar to the question of, on btc standard, what is the value of bitcoin you hold vs (obviously bitcoin denominated value since there is nothing else) the value of everything else you own (equities, physical property). Just savings vs investment rate.

Toxic Bitcoiner 1y ago

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.

Jason the Original 1y ago

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.

Deleted Account 1y ago

Love

Jason the Original 1y ago

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.

Toxic Bitcoiner 1y ago

Houses, equities, antiques etc will be worth X amount of Bitcoin. Just like they’re worth X amount of dollars today. Just a lot less in % of total wealth. It’s pretty simple.

Paul 1y ago

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.

Delta, Dirac 1y ago

You think you are saying something, but this non-specific gibberish you are babbling is actually less tethered to reality than when fiat people talk about economics

Delta, Dirac 1y ago

I find the more intuitive way to think about this question is in terms of GDP rather than total market cap. Total market cap actually is meaningless because it shifts based on velocity and amount that the world moves in or out of money.

So with GDP, you say $100 trillion/yr today, mapped to how many bitcoin flowing through the global economy? If it is 1 million bitcoin GDP, that gets you to $100m/coin.

Then you can ask, what would make the bitcoin GDP supply expand or contract? Let's do a hypothetical: someone generates a new sort of nuclear reactor and there is widespread confidence that Earth will see a 10x in growth in a decade, maybe that year you see 3 million bitcoin. Usually it will be pretty stable.

Why else would you think this way? It is far more intuitive to someone who has not taken the orangepill and it makes it intuitive why you actually have infinite EFFECTIVE elasticity because your EFFECTIVE monetary supply is that 1 million bitcoin/yr. The ultimate weapon to destroy Keynesian nonsense. This also wholly debunks the deranged view that you "need" monetary credit for an economy to function.

Lucid 1y ago

That's an excellent point. Thank you

Indonesia ⚡ Lea Octaviani 🍊 1y ago

1000000% agree with this 👇 SETUJU !!

#bitcoin

nostr:note1q44m0xznjp49m3sggzwl0jt02qe9uc2fwgmtp0vzcww4wzf0d67sjvv3sf