"When speculation becomes faith, volatility becomes dogma, and the ceiling, an illusion that is denied until the fall."
General introduction
It is not an exaggeration to assert that Bitcoin (BTC), since its genesis in 2009, represents both a technological innovation, a monetary rebellion, and a distorting mirror of contemporary beliefs. A cyber-libertarian project that has become a speculative financial asset, Bitcoin has been adorned with all virtues: store of value, 'digital gold', a bulwark against inflation, a tool of individual sovereignty, or even a self-fulfilling prophecy of a decentralized world (Nakamoto, 2008; Popper, 2015).
But while the promises of Bitcoin are multiple, its price remains constrained. Not by nature, but by a series of structural, narrative, and macroeconomic constraints that this thesis seeks to demonstrate. More precisely, we will defend the following thesis: Bitcoin will not be able, within a reasonable time frame and in the absence of a global systemic rupture, to sustainably exceed the threshold of 110,000 US dollars. An assertion that, in the era of serial speculative bubbles, may seem provocative, if not naive. This is precisely what we need to demonstrate.
"Scarcity does not create value unless it is backed by a solvent and constant demand."
This assertion, which may seem arbitrary at first glance, is based on a convergence of empirical, technical, behavioral, and narrative clues. It is not about predicting short-term fluctuations, nor contesting the possibility of a fleeting spike to 120k on Binance one Saturday morning at 3 a.m. (this market has already defied many logics), but rather to argue that structurally, narratively, and economically, there exists a ceiling beyond which Bitcoin can no longer climb without contradicting itself.
The first limiting factor is fundamental: the supposed absolute scarcity of Bitcoin. Coded to exist only to the tune of 21 million units, this scarcity is often compared to that of gold. But gold has intrinsic utility (industrial, aesthetic, cultural) and a millennia-old history, while Bitcoin is a purely digital asset whose scarcity is... known in advance. This implies that the market has already integrated this scarcity, or at least that it cannot eternally justify a growth in value simply through a shortage effect. The paradox here is that scarcity is already in the price; once it is there, it can no longer serve as a driver.
Furthermore, there is the question of the real centralization of the network. Contrary to popular belief, Bitcoin is not as decentralized as it claims. About 0.1% of addresses control more than 25% of the bitcoins in circulation. Full nodes, which ensure the validity of the network, are concentrated in a few countries and rely on fragile electrical infrastructure, often dependent on fossil sources or subcontracting in unstable jurisdictions. The network is energy-intensive, not scalable (averaging less than 10 transactions per second), and has never truly found its place as a payment system in real life.
The experience of El Salvador, often cited as an example of national adoption, revealed a disillusionment: very few Salvadorans actually use BTC to pay for their bread or bus fare, despite tax incentives.
The second limiting factor pertains to the realm of speculative narratives and market psychology. Bitcoin is an asset without classic fundamental value: it does not generate cash flow, dividends, nor does it correspond to a company. Its price is, at its core, entirely narrative.
It relies on the faith of investors, on memes, on more or less dubious authority figures — PlanB, for example, and his 'Stock-to-Flow' model, which became cult-like between 2019 and 2021, has proven incapable of predicting anything after 2022, without really diminishing its popularity.
The Bitcoin community has, consciously or unconsciously, erected a religion around terms like 'HODL', 'to the moon', or 'hyperbitcoinization'. These expressions, which make academic observers smile, have a real performative effect. But like any self-fulfilling prophecy, it reaches a point where its repetition becomes caricatured.
As the price rises, the narrative crumbles: the promise of democratization becomes obsolete. How can one still believe that Bitcoin is 'the people's money' when it costs 150,000 dollars each? This threshold creates a cognitive contradiction between the supposedly liberating nature of the project and the speculative reality of its price.
The third set of factors is based on the global macro-financial reality. Bitcoin, often touted as a 'hedge' against inflation, did not deliver on its promises during the rising interest rate cycles of 2022–2023. It has shown a strong correlation with the Nasdaq, acting more like a high-beta asset than a store of value. In an environment of positive real rates, institutional investors prefer Treasury bonds or productive assets over volatile digital currencies. Speculative appetite declines with global liquidity. Therefore, a rise in Bitcoin beyond 110k would require a massive injection of capital.
in a macroeconomic context of monetary tightening and disinflation. This is structurally unlikely.
Additionally, there is increasing regulation, which, while reassuring some, undermines the original spirit of crypto. The arrival of spot Bitcoin ETFs in the United States and Europe (BlackRock, Fidelity) has certainly legitimized Bitcoin among institutional investors, but it has also reduced its volatility and capacity for explosive growth. A regulated bubble is no longer a bubble, but a captive balloon.
The utopia of a Bitcoin outside the system collapses when it becomes a structured, monitored, taxed product, and integrated into Wall Street.
Ultimately, the threshold of 110,000 dollars appears as a symbolic, almost mythological, tipping point. Beyond this price, Bitcoin no longer represents an alternative to the system, but yet another asset class with uncertain returns, captured by the same logics it purported to destroy. Exceeding this threshold would therefore lead to a loss of faith, a narrative reversal. Like Icarus flying too close to the sun, Bitcoin would see its wings melt under the heat of financial spotlights.
It is tempting to envision a future where Bitcoin reaches 500,000, 1 million, or even becomes the world currency. But this requires suspending all analytical rigor and entering the realm of pure faith. The history of markets is filled with messianic assets that promised a new paradigm before colliding with their own success.
In conclusion, the ceiling of 110,000 dollars should not be interpreted as a technical or algorithmic limit, but as a breaking point between myth and reality. Beyond this threshold, Bitcoin ceases to be Bitcoin. It becomes a living contradiction.
And it is worth, all things considered, exactly what people believe it is worth — but not more.
