I modeled BTC’s CAGR. The “not $2M in 20 years” take is mathematically wrong.

Got into a debate with someone who claimed Bitcoin won’t hit $2M/coin within 20 years. I ran the math instead of vibes.

Their own premise: BTC “flattens” from today’s ~45–50% CAGR down to just above stocks (S&P baseline ~10%) over 15 years, then stays a bit above that.

I modeled a linear step-down from 45–55% to 11% by year 15, then hold 11% for years 16–20 (log scale for clarity). Even under that bearish-ish path, compounding still crushes:

Results (starting from $112K): • 45% → 11% (by year 15) → $7.28M at year 20; crosses $2M in year 10. • 50% → 11% → $9.60M at year 20; crosses $2M in year 9. • 55% → 11% → $12.57M at year 20; crosses $2M in year 8.

So, using their flattening assumption, $2M happens well inside 20 years.

For folks who prefer straight CAGR targets (no step-down), from $112K: • 45% CAGR → $2M in ~7 years • 30% CAGR → $2M in ~10 years • 20% CAGR → $2M in ~16 years • 15% CAGR → $2M in ~20 years • 14% CAGR → $2M in ~22 years • 12% CAGR → $2M in ~25 years • 11% CAGR → $2M in ~30 years

It’s simple compounding, not rocket science. If BTC “outperforms stocks,” then by definition it compounds faster than ~10% and hits $2M within ~20 years (or sooner), unless you assume sub-15% long-run returns, at which point it barely beats the S&P and kind of undermines the whole reason why we’re here to begin with.

If you disagree, cool. bring a model (rates, horizon, and math), not just vibes.