The numerical part of this argument is... nonexistent? The only time the 500k figure appears in the article is at the very end: "Said differently, the price of

The numerical part of this argument is... nonexistent? The only time the 500k figure appears in the article is at the very end: "Said differently, the price of bitcoin could appreciate 45x from where it is today, which means we could see a price of $500,000 U.S. dollars per bitcoin." OK, so where does this factor of 45x come from? It comes from the immediately preceding sentence: "If we are right about using a gold framework to value bitcoin, and bitcoin continues on this path, then the bull case scenario for bitcoin is that it is undervalued by a multiple of 45." Right. What is a "gold framework"? They don't say. There are some ramblings about asteroid mining and Elon Musk bringing gold back from Mars, which will "crater the price of gold". This is unclear, but I think they are trying to suggest the gold price dropping to near 0. Which seems nonsensical, since nobody will mine the asteroids if they can't expect a good return on their effort. Aaanyway, back to the 500k: We do get this right before the "gold framework" sentence: "Today, the market capitalization of above ground gold is conservatively $9 trillion." OK. So I think the reasoning they are hinting at goes something like this: - the gold price will fall to near 0 - the $9 trillion dollars currently invested in gold will all be invested in Bitcoin instead - the supply of Bitcoin is limited at 21 million - $9 trillion / 21 million Bitcoin = $429k / Bitcoin, which = $500k / Bitcoin if you squint hard enough - the above checks out if you assume a "real" supply of 18 million Bitcoin because some are lost I question most of the points listed above.