My thoughts on the BAML report: The calculation of BTC's value as a currency uses the correct methodology, which I had previously outlined in this post: https:

My thoughts on the BAML report: The calculation of BTC's value as a currency uses the correct methodology, which I had previously outlined in this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6829518 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6829518 BAML uses M1 (cash + checking accounts) instead of M2 (M1 + savings accounts + time deposits). Using M2 is a lot more aggressive but it also captures the "store of value" value. M2 is really a best case scenario for BTC owners, as it assumes that users will hold their savings in BTC. BAML is fine to be conservative with this. BAML's inclusion of Bitcoin's value as a money transmission business is absurd. While transfer fees accrue to the shareholders of Western Union, the transfer fees of BTC transfers do not accrue to BTC owners. In fact, the transfer fees are quite small to zero and they accrue to the miners. So if BTC does take share from WU, etc., it only shrinks the pie. Some posters on HN and elsewhere are saying that BAML is "too conservative", but they have not posted their own numbers and assumptions. The reality is that BTC's current real economy is nowhere near the size needed to justify the current BTC price, and enormous growth of this economy is already baked into the price. While it's not impossible that this growth can occur, there are real reasons to believe that it won't.