2026-01-09 09:32:34

I recently came across a research report published by the asset management giant VanEck. They provided a rather aggressive long-term forecast for Bitcoin — by 2050, the price could soar to $2.9 million, with an annual growth rate of about 15%. This number certainly grabs attention, but what’s more worth noting is the logical chain behind their projection.

VanEck’s core assumptions are several: first, the absolute scarcity of Bitcoin — the total supply is capped at 21 million coins, and this has never changed; second, the continuous influx of institutional funds — from pension funds to central banks around the world are gradually building Bitcoin positions; finally, Bitcoin’s unique role in a portfolio — its low correlation and anti-inflation properties make it a hedge.

However, there is a key premise that needs to be honestly acknowledged: this is based on the "most optimistic assumptions." By most optimistic, it means no major technological disruptions and no revolutionary substitutes emerging. Bitcoin’s ten-year growth has indeed been astonishing, but can this growth trajectory continue linearly into the future? That’s hard to guarantee. Plus, regulatory policies could change at any moment, and these are risk factors that need to be considered.

From an investment perspective, if you go all-in now and buy one Bitcoin, based on this forecast, its value could be 29 million RMB by 2050. It sounds very tempting, but the real question is — will you still be in this world on that day? This question is more interesting than the numbers themselves.

BTC0,08%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

7 Likes

Reward
7
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ValidatorViking

· 01-09 10:02

$290M by 2050? sure, *if* we're living in the most battle-tested timeline where no competing protocol breaks consensus finality and every central bank actually commits long-term... ngl the real slashing risk here is believing linear extrapolation works on 26-year horizons. VanEck's optimism is built on shaky validator set assumptions tbh.

Reply0

screenshot_gains

· 01-09 10:02

It would be great to still be alive in 2050, haha. Let's focus on earning in the present first.

View OriginalReply0

MEVictim

· 01-09 10:00

$2.9 million sounds great, but I haven't really thought about how to spend it yet. Can I withdraw it later?

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeGazer

· 01-09 09:59

2.9 million USD by 2050... sounds good, but I'm more concerned about whether I can still be alive to see it in over twenty years haha --- That talk about scarcity is so overused. The key still depends on whether some black swan can wipe out Bitcoin --- Hodling one for over twenty years to turn it into 29 million RMB? I might have already given up by then. The current happiness is worth more than that number --- VanEck's report is purely a pie-in-the-sky for retail investors. The most optimistic assumptions are the least reliable ones --- A 15% annual growth rate sounds easy, but how many big predictions have we seen crash due to regulation? --- We've heard enough about inflation hedging tools. It all still depends on the central bank's stance --- Who the hell can predict what will happen in 2050? Better to focus on the returns we can get now

View OriginalReply0

Whale_Whisperer

· 01-09 09:50

2.9 million USD by 2050? Come on, I just want to know if VanEck has considered quantum computing. Living until 2050 is uncertain anyway, and you're still calculating book value. The most optimistic assumption sounds nice, but it's basically "nothing bad happens," is that even possible? Will central banks really stockpile Bitcoin on a large scale? Are the people saying this not paying attention to each country's stance? Scarcity is real, but the probability of substitutes appearing isn't zero either. Instead of waiting 30 years, it's better to see the policy trends for next year.

View OriginalReply0

FlashLoanLarry

· 01-09 09:42

lol the opportunity cost of hodling til 2050... chief, that's literally negative carry on steroids. even if the thesis validates, you're leaving basis points on the table every single cycle. the scarcity narrative tracks but cmon, "no revolutionary alternatives"? protocol dynamics shift fast. vaneck's capital utilization math doesn't account for impermanent loss through regulatory backrunning tbh.

Reply0