2031 sounds a bit late for me. Generally speaking, it is possible that a some point bitcoin basically plateaus (at much higher levels) and would be going up and down just 20-30% a year.
What I am talking about? I cannot imagine bitcoin going at a 45 degree angle for a decade, but it is possible that bitcoin will very rapidly change it's "state" from a 0.5 tril asset to a 10-20 tril asset (20-40X) and stay there for a long time. This transition could be relatively fast-for example, this cycle and the next one, finished by late 2028, early 2029.
I am not sure why we need to compare bitcoin with GDP when it is mostly an asset that is presumed to be a savings vehicle, at least for a nearest future.
We have roughly 500-900 tril in assets and, I believe, bitcoin could be roughly 2-3% of all assets by 2028-2029.
In addition, Gold has a 13.1 tril market cap and by 2028 halving, bitcoin's stock to flow (indicating scarcity) would be way higher than gold, making it quite plausible that bitcoin can attain a similar market cap.
Both gold and bitcoin are not directly involved in GDP production, or are involved only on a limited basis, for now.
I was a bit bothered by the GDP as some kind of a realistic measurement of bitcoin too, even though there could be some validity to using GDP as part of a measurement, even though overall monetary value is likely a way more appropriate measure, especially since bitcoin seems to either be amongst the soundest of money ever discovered/invented, but also that monetary value ends up being the most appropriate measure of from where bitcoin is going to be taking value since the value is going to flow into the soundest of monies.. so there is nothing else that comes close to bitcoin, even while at the same time, it could take 50 to 200 years for the value flow to really come to later stages in which an overwhelming majority of it is in bitcoin, and surely that seems to be closer to $900k at current times and based on current dollar values.
Another thing that I am considering about SamReomo's presentation of a peak after the 2029 peak is that there is an assumption that we are going to get off of the 4-year cycle, and I doubt that we so easily get rid of the 4-year cycle, so we cannot completely ignore the 4 year cycle or even go contrary to it with0out some kind of an explanation regarding why that would end up happening in 2030/2031.. just seems strange because 30-31 would be correction and/or stagnation years and 2028/2029 and also 2032/33 would be the potential pump years.. and yeah the 4-year cycle is not guaranteed, but it seems a bit counter-factual to just ignore it or presume it away.. even if it does remain possible that the 4-year cycle might disappear at some point.