Bibliographic record
Abstract
We refine a bottom-up, quantity-clearing framework of Bitcoin price formation that couples its fixed 21-million-coin cap with plausible demand growth and execution behavior. This approach relies on first-principles economic supply-and-demand dynamics rather than assumptions about anticipated Bitcoin price appreciation, its price history, or its potential effectiveness in demonetizing other asset classes. We considered five key high-level factors that may affect price determination: level of market demand; intertemporal investment preferences; fiat-denominated withdrawal sensitivity; initial liquid supply; and daily withdrawal levels from liquid supply. With a goal of both increasing understanding of the impacts of price drivers and developing probabilistic forecasts, we show two models: (1) a baseline to assess the impacts of parameter changes, alone and in combination, on Bitcoin price trajectories and liquid supply over time and (2) a Monte Carlo simulation that incorporates uncertainty across a range of uncertain parameterizations and presents probabilistic price and liquid supply forecasts to 2036. Our baseline model highlighted the importance of liquid supply and withdrawal sensitivity in price impacts. The Monte Carlo simulation results suggest a 50% likelihood that Bitcoin price will exceed USD 5.17 M by April 2036. Generally, prices from the low single millions to the low tens of millions per Bitcoin by 2036 emerge under broad parameter sets; hyperbolic paths to higher price levels are relatively rare and concentrate when liquid supply falls near or below BTC 2 M and withdrawal sensitivity is low. Our results help locate where right-tail risk and disorderly market outcomes concentrate and suggest that policy tools are available to help guide trajectories.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".