Bitcoin Outlook: Moss Projects $1M Value by 2030

• Moss argues Bitcoin is highly sensitive to liquidity, reacting far more strongly to money supply growth than gold or equities.

• He estimates global store-of-value assets could reach $1.6 quadrillion by 2030 due to continued monetary expansion.

• If Bitcoin captures 1.25% of that market, its valuation nears $21T, implying a price close to $1M per coin.

Mark Moss has stated that Bitcoin could reach $1 million per coin by 2030. Moss outlined his reasoning in detail. He connected his projection to monetary expansion trends, liquidity sensitivity and the size of global store-of-value markets.

Liquidity Sensitivity and Asset Behavior

Moss referenced historical comparisons to describe how asset classes respond to rising money supply levels. He noted that United States equity performance and median real estate prices appear to track the M2 money supply.

He stated that Bitcoin reacts more sharply to liquidity changes, with what he called an “8.9 times sensitivity,” compared with gold at “about 1.5 times.” He attributed the difference to Bitcoin’s supply limit of 21 million units.

Mapping the Store-of-Value Basket

According to Moss, global store-of-value assets, including equities, bonds, real estate, cash, gold, and collectibles, reached roughly $1 quadrillion by 2025. He described earlier figures of $300 trillion in 2010, $500–600 trillion in 2020 and $900 trillion before expanding to current levels.

He stated that Congressional Budget Office projections indicate continued monetary expansion, and he linked those projections to a potential $1.6 quadrillion valuation for the store-of-value basket by 2030.

Moss’ Target and Market Share Estimate

Moss stated that Bitcoin could represent 1.25 percent of that projected $1.6 quadrillion market. He calculated that such a share would equal about $21 trillion and imply a price near $1 million per coin.

He compared that scale to the current gold market, positioning the projected valuation as “on par” with gold under his assumptions. He framed the estimate as a function of anticipated liquidity, historical growth rates, and the stated supply limit.