What is the highest price that 1 BTC can reach?

Bitcoin maximalists often repeat the mantra “∞/21,000,000.” Some decoinizers have questioned the 21 million supply, at least in theory, and claim to “refute the fallacy.” In this note, on the contrary, what I want to ask is infinity and find the reasonable limit that 1 BTC’s purchasing power can reach.

The infinity in that formula represents fiat money, Sometimes confused with value, This tells us that 1 BTC has infinite value.

A colleague of this medium, Nikolai Antipolovich, wrote the following note in 2024: It’s market capitalization, idiot! So he warns against making hasty predictions about altcoin prices. In most cases, those making these predictions do not take into account the net value that would need to flow into the altcoin to cause the expected price increase.

For an asset’s price to increase, its market capitalization must increase, and that number is divided by the units in circulation. For example, if you have 1 million units of an asset worth $1 each, the price increases by $0.000001 for each new dollar that comes in, and it takes an additional $1 million to reach a value of $2 per unit. Speaking of percentages, The larger the capital, the greater the amount needed to have a significant impact.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this same thing has been applied to Bitcoin. How much value can an asset be expected to absorb? The answer to this question depends largely on the form of calculation applied and whether Bitcoin is understood as a medium of exchange or a means of storage.

Medium of Exchange, BTC to World GDP

The impetus for conducting this study was a study by Juan Carlos Vérez Mato published by IFEB titled “Deflationary Dynamics of Bitcoin in the Face of Hyperbitcoinization: Free Markets and Price Stability.”

The purpose of this study is not exactly to predict the high of BTC price, but it is done as part of the development. The model we use calculates prices based on global GDP and velocity of circulation. In other words, consider BTC as a medium of exchange that is constantly in motion. We assume that the amount of coins fixed due to hoarding or loss is relatively small. This will give you 18,000,000 BTC in circulation. So consider that the use of BTC as a savings vehicle is less than 3,000,000 units, which is pretty marginal.

World GDP in 2025 was approximately $100 trillion. The study provides model-based BTC price predictions for 2025, 2030, and 2040, adjusted to the May 2025 price of approximately $100,000. Here are their predictions:

The formula used is: Pb = GDPD/SV

Vérez Mato’s model estimates an adoption rate of 80% and a velocity of 5. The price of BTC is 2,811,111 USD per unit..

The models described below are different and give other results. Rather than estimating the price of BTC based on global GDP (which measures the production of goods and services), we estimate it based on accumulated wealth.

Saving medium, BTC of precious value

Michael Saylor said in his Bitcoin 2026 presentation: “The ultimate goal is to raise the price of Bitcoin to 10 million per coin and turn Bitcoin into a 200 billion network.” Starting from the previous model, this statement makes no sense. If the world GDP is around 100 trillion, how can Bitcoin accumulate twice that much?

To understand it, we first need to know the model that Thaler makes predictions from, but without giving its original creator the credit he deserves. This model is that of Jesse Myers (Croesus_BTC) described in his 2023 article “Bitcoin’s Potential Valuation”.

This model assumes the perspective that Bitcoin will not compete within the industry because the industry is concerned about it. Depending on the specific needs of the products and services that the company provides and that the customer pays for, The total is the economy (GDP). The economy produces value (profit), but that value is stored in savings assets. The value stored in all these assets is not GDP (liquid value), but much more.

Different assets have different limits on the value they can accumulate. If you lump all your savings instruments together as a big box of stores of value, and represent each specific asset as a smaller box within it, there are practical limits to the size of each of these boxes.

This is because the valuation of each asset category is limited by key variables. In the case of raw materials and goods, their valuation is limited by new supply. For example, because gold grows by about 2% each year, the value it holds decreases by the same amount. In the case of Bitcoin, the supply is fixed and predictable.

The total potential market for Bitcoin is $900 trillion in global net worth.

The global Bitcoin allocation in 2023 was 0.05%. 400 billion dollars for a total of 900 billion dollars. This is 1/2000th of the world’s asset value. As of this writing in May 2026, BTC’s market capitalization is $1.47 trillion, three times the amount in 2023. But it’s only 0.16% of that total.

According to Myers’ most conservative estimate (according to Saylor), Bitcoin could absorb 25% of its stored value, or 225 trillion, and its unit price could reach up to $10 million.

Conclusion, contrast between the two models

Each model is based on a different idea of ​​hyperbitcoinization. For Vélez Mato, hyperbitcoinization means widespread use of BTC as a medium of exchange, an idea similar to the original proposal of the concept created by Krawish in 2014, but ignoring BTC’s function as a means of storage. For Myers, on the other hand, hyperbitcoinization (although he does not use that term in his work) consists of the transfer of value from other storage vehicles to BTC.

Now that I’ve introduced both models, I think: Myers’s is more accurate, Velez Mato’s is too conservative. The reason is explained below.

Considering the use of BTC as a savings vehicle, I believe Veles Mato’s research is insufficient. Not only does it base its calculations on GDP, which is a measure of production rather than a fixed value, but it also assigns a marginal value to the accumulated coins. Remember one of its basic premises: The circulating amount of BTC is 18,000,000. This means that only 3,000,000 BTC can be lost or accumulated in this model.

This assumption seems misguided to me, but based on the river BTC distribution data that I have already cited in another article, I believe the reality must be rather the opposite.

Here we can see that 1.57 million coins were lost and 968,000 coins were in Satoshi’s wallet, meaning 2.53 million coins are irrecoverable. Therefore, the room to stock up is very small at only 462,000, of which Strategy already holds 843,738 (as of May 30, 2026), which is nearly twice that amount.

Meanwhile, estimates of Bitcoin supply in the market, presented by Alfred Lozenzbitt in his LABITCONF 2025 presentation “What Really Moves the Price of Bitcoin,” show that there are 7.8 million inactive addresses, 15 million long-term holders, 3 million short-term holders, and a declining trend, with an additional 3 million deposited on exchanges.

That will give you a quote. Between 2 and 4 million BTC are in circulation. In other words, the proportion of BTC in circulation and storage seems to be the opposite of Veles Mato’s proposal, with the circulation being 2 million to 4 million and the storage being 17 million to 19 million.

If, instead of calculating such a large amount of currency, we put a tenth (1.8 million, close to Roisenzvit’s minimum) in the 2030 model of Vérez Mato, the result would be a price of USD 11,111,111.11 and a capital of USD 233,333,333,333,333, very close to the Myers model.

Myers and Saylor, like Velez-Mato, did not specify the time horizon for their predictions, but they considered 25% market share as a potential upper bound for BTC adoption as a savings vehicle, at which point the price could stabilize.

Vélez Mato has very conservative forecasts until 2070, at which point he also believes prices will stabilize. So you never know when you’re going to get a fairly accurate amount. You can expect BTC to go from USD 1,000,000 up to USD 10,000,000, but after that it is very rare to see the cycles and volatility that we are used to seeing now. It will probably continue to rise, but more gradually and steadily.