(...)
It would be a long shot for bitcoin to shoot straight up to $2 million, yet it also is not beyond the realm of possibilties.
Shooting up to $2 million woudl be right around a 32x from here.
(...)
This is a good example of how some metrics are not fit for all purposes. The multipliers, or percentage figures of changes in price in the past
are not in any way an indicator of what could happen in the future.
In simple terms:
Increasing your net worth from $1 to $100 is not hard, even a homeless junkie could do that without much effort. But going from $1 billion to $100 billion, or even just to $2 billion, is a whole different story.
In setting up hopes for BTC's price, we need to consider how much new money would have to flow to the market rather than focusing on past ratios.
Net worth is a very bad example and by the way, I think a lot of billionaires will tell you that turning $1 billion into $2 billion or much that that was far, far easier than turning $10k into $100k into $1 million. Once you reach a certain net worth, your realm of possibilities is enlarged by so much that things become exponentially easier. The homeless guy with $100 in the pockets may have turned $1 into $100, but he hasn't gained any network, any power, any new leverage capabilities, nothing.
A billionaire doesn't only have a billion in the bank (or in assets in general), but they also gained influence, far-reaching recognition, the ability to seize countless opportunities at once, take much higher absolute risks without going broke, engage in effective corruption, buy media outlets and push their own agenda, the list is probably much longer, but I guess you get the point.
When for Twitter goes to zero, Elon Musk doesn't care. But how many people are there in the whole world who could afford buying Twitter? 10? If it's a consortium, maybe 1,000? The guy who has 250 bucks in his pocket would take a severe hit to his net worth when he loses 40 bucks. Musk doesn't need to care when $40 billion out of his $250 billion go down the toilet.
Another measure is market cap, and if we understand how bitcoin might be valued as compared with gold's market cap, then we might reasonably come to an assessment that bitcoin is about 1,000x more valuable than gold in terms of various aspects of moneyness, referring to scarcity, transportability, verifiability, costs of using it, programability, physicality and other attributes that might be pluses or minuses, and right now bitcoin is ONLY valued around 1/15th the value of gold in terms of market cap, so that means that bitcoin is potentially around 30,000x undervalued as compared with gold, so does gold have to come down, or bitcoin go up or is there some combination of those going on or do they both go up? And, you might not even believe in such an assessment that bitcoin is around 1,000x more valuable than gold... That's your choice.
JJG has been talking about this for a very long time now and as someone who reads a ton of his posts, I would argue that it is hard to get him wrong. He clearly stated that everything is basically possible at any time. There are some very interesting things in the making. Some people/media outlets claim that there is a high probability of the BRICS having been buying thousands of tons of gold secretly as it is possible that they want to fight the dollar with their own currency, perhaps being backed by gold. But in an age of digitization, the demand for transparency and verifiability, how likely is it that bitcoin becomes tremendously important in regards to geopolitics?
I believe that a lot of big political actors have long realized that bitcoin can't be stopped effectively unless they break it somehow. They aren't talking much about it and to me this is a potential sign that they are at it, building their position within this network through various ways. It could be setting up nodes, buying bitcoin, hiring some of the best people in the world to build analytical software, infiltrate exchanges, I don't know.
So is 100k possible in a short period of time? Definitely and is $1 million or $2 million possible? Yes and as JJG said, sayin that this is possible, it could go down as well for reasons obviously unknown at this point in time as otherwise it would have been priced in already. But the chance that there comes an unexpected or anyhow suspected catalyst into play is not unlikely. If something becomes politically relevant, it is more likely that important actors keep as silent as they can while gaining influence before informing the public about anything beyond what is necessary.
And JJG is of course correct when he says that this could as well take 50 or 100 years because it would indeed be positively ridiculous if bitcoin's market cap would overtake that of gold within 20 years of its existence, considering that gold has thousands of years of history to look back on.