By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
Panelists generally agree that VanEck's $1 million Bitcoin target by 2031 is overly optimistic and relies on multiple tailwinds, with significant risks including regulatory shifts, macroeconomic downturns, and Bitcoin's high correlation with the Nasdaq. They also discuss Bitcoin's role as a hedge against sovereign debt debasement and its potential as a reserve asset, but these scenarios are considered low probability or uncertain.
Risk: Bitcoin's high correlation with the Nasdaq and potential regulatory restrictions
Opportunity: Bitcoin's potential as a hedge against sovereign debt debasement and a reserve asset in a 'fiscal dominance' scenario
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Cryptocurrencies have struggled amid the Iran war, risk-off sentiment, and concerns about other technologies.
Bitcoin is down 37% since its October highs.
The global investment manager VanEck sees better times ahead.
It's been a wild ride for Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC), the world's largest cryptocurrency, during the past year. After reaching more than $126,000 in October, the crypto and the rest of the digital-asset market, has entered bear territory, defined as a fall of at least 20% decline from its highs.
Now trading at about $79,000 (as of May 15), Bitcoin is down 37% since last October, and many other cryptocurrencies have fared worse. However, the crypto sector has actually survived many bear markets, some even harsher than the current one, and come back stronger than ever.
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
This time will be no different, according to VanEck's Global Head of Digital Assets, Matthew Sigel, who recently appeared on CNBC and said Bitcoin will hit $1 million per token by 2031.
Since last October, Bitcoin and the broader crypto sector have faced numerous headwinds. Bitcoin seemed to struggle like tech stocks for a time as investors shifted to a more risk-off mindset earlier this year and after the conflict in Iran began.
Bitcoin and blockchain technology also seemed to face concerns similar to those of software stocks, which struggled amid competitive threats from artificial intelligence (AI). Beyond that, crypto has faced concerns about quantum computing, which some believe could eventually penetrate crypto-level encryption.
This may have contributed to so-called whales unloading some of their large Bitcoin and crypto holdings, triggering further selling. But ultimately, Sigel and his team view the dip as a long-term buying opportunity.
On May 6, Sigel went on CNBC's Halftime Report to discuss his bullish thesis for Bitcoin. Sigel said that much of his team's thesis is driven by macro factors, noting that Bitcoin's correlation with the Nasdaq Composite has reached a five-year high, suggesting Sigel and his team are also very bullish on the tech-heavy Nasdaq.
At the time, Sigel said his team was encouraged because they hadn't yet seen froth in the derivatives market. He also said they are encouraged by demographic trends, specifically noting young investors' intent to allocate capital to Bitcoin.
It's going to be like the video game industry. Thirty years ago, it was just kids playing video games. Now, Elon Musk plays video games. People don't quit. They also don't quit Bitcoin. We now have the first central bank buying Bitcoin for its reserves, so this is a megatrend. But it's going to be very volatile along the way, and we are trying to smooth out some of that volatility.
The answer to this question is anyone's guess.
It's quite difficult to make five-year stock price predictions, let alone for cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, which can't be valued using traditional methods that price multiples on earnings and free cash flow.
I would caution any investor from reading too much into a five-year price target.
The other issue Bitcoin has faced is the debate over the digital gold thesis. Some believe Bitcoin is a form of digital gold due to its 21 million finite token supply, which give it the potential to hedge against inflation and serve as a haven during times of extreme risk, such as on the geopolitical front.
Yet, as Sigel said, Bitcoin's correlation with the Nasdaq is now at a five-year high, so how can both be true?
Either way, I think investors can allocate a small amount of capital to Bitcoin and earn good long-term gains. The regulatory environment has improved drastically under President Donald Trump's administration, and institutional adoption seems to grow by the day.
Bitcoin also seems to have hit a level of broader adoption where it's unlikely to just suddenly go away. Whether it continues to have a high correlation to tech stocks or serves as a form of digital gold, either scenario should generate solid long-term gains.
Before you buy stock in Bitcoin, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Bitcoin wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $468,861! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,445,212!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 1,013% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 210% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of May 16, 2026. *
Bram Berkowitz has positions in Bitcoin. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Bitcoin. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Bitcoin’s current high-beta correlation to the Nasdaq invalidates its near-term utility as a geopolitical risk hedge, making the $1 million target dependent on a macro environment that may not materialize."
VanEck’s $1 million target by 2031 is a classic 'blue-sky' scenario that assumes Bitcoin successfully captures a significant share of global M2 money supply as a reserve asset. While institutional adoption via ETFs has provided a liquidity floor, the article glosses over the fundamental contradiction: Bitcoin is currently trading as a high-beta tech proxy, not a hedge. If the Nasdaq enters a secular bear market due to compressed AI-valuation multiples, Bitcoin’s correlation suggests it will sell off alongside equities, not decouple as 'digital gold.' Investors should focus on the 2028 halving cycle's supply impact rather than arbitrary price targets that ignore potential regulatory shifts or liquidity tightening.
If Bitcoin truly achieves its 'digital gold' status as a neutral global settlement layer, its correlation to the Nasdaq will eventually break, rendering current macro-hedging concerns irrelevant.
"A $1M price target divorced from valuation methodology, combined with peak tech correlation, suggests the bull case is sentiment-driven rather than fundamentals-driven—dangerous at potential market inflection points."
VanEck's $1M Bitcoin target by 2031 rests on macro tailwinds (institutional adoption, central bank buying, regulatory thaw under Trump) and demographic shifts. But the article itself admits Bitcoin's 5-year Nasdaq correlation is at highs—undermining the 'digital gold' hedge narrative. If tech corrects sharply, Bitcoin likely corrects harder, not less. The $1M claim is unanchored to any valuation framework; it's aspirational, not analytical. The real risk: if macro turns (recession, rate shock, geopolitical escalation), the 'megatrend' thesis evaporates and we're left with a volatile speculative asset with no earnings to justify valuations.
Bitcoin has survived multiple 70%+ drawdowns and recovered to new highs; dismissing a decade-long thesis because of current correlation to tech ignores historical resilience and the genuine structural shift toward institutional ownership.
"N/A"
[Unavailable]
"Bitcoin reaching $1M by 2031 is an extreme, speculative bet that would require unprecedented adoption and favorable macro-policy conditions, making it far from a given."
Today’s piece amplifies a dramatic Bitcoin call from VanEck while glossing over critical risks. Bitcoin's price path hinges on extreme adoption, regulatory clarity, and macro tailwinds that are far from assured; a 2031 move to $1 million implies a 13x+ multiple from current levels, or a multi-decade bull market without major drawdowns, which history hasn't shown. The article cites Nasdaq correlation, ‘digital gold’ logic, and central-bank buying as catalysts, but it ignores energy, mining stress tests, potential ETF/liquidity constraints, and geopolitical shocks that could derail demand. It also treats crypto as a single asset rather than a highly diverse, competition-laden market with competing networks and governance.
Even if adoption accelerates, a regime shift (e.g., tighter global crypto rules) or a major cybersecurity shock could cap upside; the price target assumes perpetual risk-on liquidity and no major drawdowns, which history shows is unlikely.
"Bitcoin's price trajectory is driven by sovereign debt sustainability and currency debasement rather than equity market correlations."
Gemini and Claude focus on the Nasdaq correlation, but you're all missing the fiscal dominance angle. Bitcoin isn't a tech proxy; it's a hedge against sovereign debt debasement. If the US Treasury continues to issue debt at current rates, the 'digital gold' narrative becomes a survival necessity for global central banks, regardless of tech volatility. The real risk isn't a Nasdaq sell-off; it's the potential for a 'yield curve control' scenario that forces Bitcoin into the role of a neutral reserve asset.
"Fiscal dominance is a real macro driver, but it's more likely to trigger *restrictions* on Bitcoin than adoption by central banks seeking monetary control."
Gemini's fiscal dominance angle is underexplored, but it conflates two separate theses. Sovereign debt stress *could* drive central-bank Bitcoin adoption—but that scenario requires either hyperinflation or a dollar-reserve collapse, both low-probability tail events. More likely: if fiscal pressure mounts, governments *restrict* Bitcoin to preserve monetary control, not embrace it. The 'yield curve control' path doesn't automatically favor Bitcoin; it favors government bonds and real assets. Correlation to tech remains the nearer-term risk.
[Unavailable]
"Central banks can constrain crypto and regulate it, so the 'digital reserve asset' thesis is speculative without credible on-ramps/custody and a clear regulatory path."
Responding to Gemini: The fiscal-dominance angle ignores regime risk—central banks can constrain or ban crypto to preserve monetary control, undermining 'digital gold' adoption. Yield-curve control isn’t a green light for Bitcoin; it could push institutions toward traditional safe assets or regulated stablecoins under compliance. Without credible on-ramps and custody clarity, the 'reserve asset' thesis remains speculative, not a given, in the near to medium term.
Panelists generally agree that VanEck's $1 million Bitcoin target by 2031 is overly optimistic and relies on multiple tailwinds, with significant risks including regulatory shifts, macroeconomic downturns, and Bitcoin's high correlation with the Nasdaq. They also discuss Bitcoin's role as a hedge against sovereign debt debasement and its potential as a reserve asset, but these scenarios are considered low probability or uncertain.
Bitcoin's potential as a hedge against sovereign debt debasement and a reserve asset in a 'fiscal dominance' scenario
Bitcoin's high correlation with the Nasdaq and potential regulatory restrictions