2026-01-15 14:29:44

An interesting phenomenon worth pondering: in 2025, Bitcoin's price increase actually lagged behind many traditional asset classes. But entering 2026, the situation could become completely different.

From a macro perspective, major economies around the world continue to release liquidity, and currency devaluation has become an established fact. In this environment, global assets like Bitcoin become the best choice to absorb massive amounts of money. Currently, Bitcoin's market capitalization is about $1.95 trillion. If it doubles to $4 trillion, this scale would be comparable to the current global silver market value.

Based on this logic, the target price of $200,000 for Bitcoin in 2026 is not a pipe dream. The key is to understand the macro driving force behind it—when the world is printing money, the true store of value will be re-priced. For friends interested in crypto assets, 2026 is worth paying close attention to.

BTC-2,37%

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.

5 Likes

Reward
5
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GateUser-5854de8b

· 5h ago

200,000 dollars? Sounds like a number, but the logic of printing money does hold up.

View OriginalReply0

fomo_fighter

· 5h ago

I understand the logic of liquidity injection, but can it really rise to 200,000? Feels like an old story in the crypto world again. --- Comparing it to the market cap of silver sounds pretty far-fetched, but liquidity injection is indeed the main trend. --- Whether it can turn around in 2026 is still uncertain; right now, it looks more like a story being told. --- Every time I analyze like this, I say there's logic, but what about the times when I get slapped in the face? --- Wait, if it didn't rise so sharply in 2025, why would it take off in 2026? --- Liquidity injection is a fact, but whether it will be Bitcoin or something else, I really don't know. --- Here we go again, starting to talk about macro stories. Believe it or not. --- Instead of looking at 2026, why not ask yourself if you've already held your position? --- If this logic were really so clear, how come I got slapped in the face last year? --- $200,000 sounds great, but what about the risks? No one mentions them.

View OriginalReply0

DeFi_Dad_Jokes

· 5h ago

The logic of liquidity injection indeed makes sense, but is 200,000 really just the starting point? Why do I feel it still depends on the mood of each country's central banks. Running behind in 2025 is just building up energy, taking off in 2026. The idea of comparing silver's market value to this is quite interesting, I hadn't thought of that. Can Bitcoin absorb such a large amount of liquidity? I always feel the ceiling isn't that high. Honestly, abundant liquidity is one thing, but where it flows is the key. This round of market movement still depends on macro data; relying solely on logical deduction is a bit uncertain. It's a bit late to jump in now; wait for the correction before entering.

View OriginalReply0

Gm_Gn_Merchant

· 5h ago

200,000 dollars? Just hearing about it is enough; anyone can talk about the logic of printing money.

View OriginalReply0

MEVHunter_9000

· 6h ago

The logic of flooding the market can be valid, but is 200,000 really not an exaggeration? --- The analogy of doubling to reach the market cap of silver is interesting, but the premise is that the whole world must accept Bitcoin as a store of value, right? --- Running behind in 2025 and then claiming to double in 2026—I've heard this routine many times before... --- Quantitative easing is a fact, but Bitcoin absorbing massive amounts of money? Sounds like just cheering oneself on. --- The key question is whether countries will truly let Bitcoin become so valuable, and how to assess political risks. --- 4 trillion USD... it's possible to think about, but the implementation difficulty is underestimated. --- This logical deduction is a bit too linear; there are too many intermediate variables. --- Basically, it's betting on central banks continuing to flood the market, but what if policies shift?

View OriginalReply0