By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel agreed that the $1M Bitcoin price target by 2040 is overly simplistic and ignores key risks and factors such as volatility, regulatory headwinds, and competing stores of value. They also debated Bitcoin's unique value proposition and potential risks from central bank policies and Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs).
Risk: Regulatory headwinds and competition from Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs)
Opportunity: Potential failure of fiat monetary policy and Bitcoin's role as a 'debasement hedge'
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 →
Bitcoin has grown at a CAGR of 36% over the past decade.
Going forward, Bitcoin's growth rate is likely to slow down as it begins to perform more like a Nasdaq tech stock.
Assuming a new CAGR of 18%, Bitcoin will hit a price of $1 million by 2040.
The $1 million price target for Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) is suddenly back on the table. At the beginning of the year, it looked like Bitcoin might dip all the way to $50,000.
But Bitcoin has regained the $80,000 price level. As a result, a growing number of top investors now think Bitcoin is once again on a trajectory to $1 million.
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 »
But when, exactly, will Bitcoin hit the $1 million price level? If it can hit $1 million by 2030, as many originally predicted, that's a big deal.
But what if it takes Bitcoin a decade or longer to reach that vaunted level?
It might sound obvious, but the time it takes Bitcoin to hit $1 million is dependent on one primary factor: how fast it can grow over time. The one number that I'm focused on right now is the compound annual growth rate (CAGR), which calculates the mean annual growth rate of an investment over a specific period of time.
In order to hit a price of $1 million by 2030, as originally predicted by Cathie Wood of Ark Invest, Bitcoin would need to grow at a CAGR of 65% over the next five years. From my perspective, that rate of growth is simply no longer sustainable for Bitcoin.
After all, over the past decade, Bitcoin grew at a CAGR of approximately 36%. Expecting Bitcoin to grow faster than this over the next five, 10, or 15 years is overly optimistic.
In fact, I'm scaling back my growth estimate for Bitcoin to just 18%, or one-half of its CAGR over the previous decade. That's roughly equivalent to the long-run CAGR of a Nasdaq-100 tech stock. It implies rapid growth, but not the type of hyperballistic growth Bitcoin experienced over the past decade.
Interestingly, the returns of Bitcoin and the Nasdaq-100 have become increasingly correlated. In other words, as the Nasdaq goes, so goes Bitcoin. Maybe investors need to start thinking about Bitcoin as just another high-beta tech stock, not as a unique portfolio diversifier.
Assuming a steady growth rate of 18% for the foreseeable future, Bitcoin will hit a price of $1 million in 15 years. For the sake of argument, let's call it 14 years. Bitcoin has been so good for so long that it deserves the benefit of the doubt.
As a result, I'm predicting that Bitcoin will hit a price of $1 million in the year 2040. There will be some zigs and zags along the way, but if Bitcoin can continue to grow as fast as a Nasdaq-100 tech stock, it should get there right on schedule.
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. *
Dominic Basulto 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 path to $1 million will be defined by monetary debasement and central bank adoption rather than the linear growth metrics of traditional tech equities."
The article’s reliance on a linear 18% CAGR to predict a $1 million Bitcoin price is fundamentally flawed because it ignores the asset's diminishing returns and supply-side constraints. Bitcoin is not a tech stock; it is a fixed-supply monetary asset. Its price appreciation is driven by liquidity cycles and adoption curves, not earnings growth. By benchmarking it against the Nasdaq-100, the author misses the second-order effect of global M2 money supply expansion. If Bitcoin becomes a true 'digital gold' reserve asset for central banks, the growth path won't be a smooth 18% glide path—it will be a series of volatile, step-function jumps driven by macro-economic instability, not tech-sector performance.
If Bitcoin’s correlation with the Nasdaq-100 continues to tighten, it may lose its status as a unique hedge, effectively capping its upside to the beta of the broader tech sector.
"N/A"
[Unavailable]
"The author's 18% CAGR assumption is internally consistent but undefended; if Bitcoin's correlation to tech stocks is real, the case for holding it independent of QQQ collapses."
The author's math is sound but rests on a heroic assumption: that Bitcoin's CAGR will halve from 36% to 18% and stay there for 15 years. That's not a forecast—it's a guess dressed in Nasdaq comparables. The real issue: Bitcoin's correlation to tech stocks (mentioned casually) undermines the diversification thesis that justified holding it in the first place. If BTC now moves with the Nasdaq-100, why own it instead of QQQ? The $1M target by 2040 is plausible math, but the article never addresses what happens if institutional adoption plateaus, regulatory headwinds intensify, or a competing store-of-value emerges. Also: the disclosure that the author holds BTC and Motley Fool recommends it should make readers skeptical of the framing.
If Bitcoin truly becomes a 'high-beta tech stock,' it may underperform actual tech stocks with earnings, cash flow, and dividends—making the 18% CAGR assumption optimistic rather than conservative, and the 2040 timeline a best-case scenario.
"Bitcoin hitting $1M by 2040 rests on a constant 18% CAGR amid favorable regulation and demand; any perturbation could derail the path."
Strong headline play: Bitcoin hitting $1M by 2040 on an 18% CAGR, hinting at Nasdaq-like growth. The flaw: CAGR assumes a smooth, long-run path, ignoring volatility, halving cycles, and regime shifts. The article glosses regulatory and energy risks, ignores competing crypto and CBDC threats, and relies on a single, optimistic demand scenario from institutions. History shows BTC price is driven by liquidity cycles as much as fundamentals; a sustained pullback in equities or a sudden policy clampdown could yank prices well below a rosy trajectory. Also, 2040 is a long horizon; even modest changes in adoption speed or macro shocks could shift the target materially.
The strongest counterpoint is that the forecast rests on fragile assumptions; a regulatory clampdown, energy costs, or a decisive shift in macro policy could derail the path to $1M for years, if not invalidate it.
"Bitcoin's long-term value is driven by global fiat debasement rather than tech sector beta or Nasdaq-like earnings growth."
Claude, your focus on the 'why own BTC over QQQ' dilemma is the crux of the issue. If the correlation persists, Bitcoin loses its unique value proposition as an uncorrelated hedge. However, you all ignore the 'liquidity trap' risk: if central banks pivot to yield curve control or massive fiscal dominance, Bitcoin’s fixed supply becomes the only exit valve for debasement. The $1M target isn't about tech growth; it's a bet on the failure of fiat monetary policy.
[Unavailable]
"The $1M thesis requires fiat monetary system failure, not just policy tightening—a much higher bar than the article implies."
Gemini's 'liquidity trap' framing is sharper than the tech-correlation debate, but it conflates two separate scenarios. If central banks adopt yield curve control, they're *managing* rates—not abandoning fiat. That's deflationary for Bitcoin, not inflationary. The $1M case requires actual monetary collapse or CBDC failure, not just policy shifts. Nobody's modeled what happens if CBDCs succeed and Bitcoin becomes redundant as a 'debasement hedge.' That's the real tail risk.
"CBDC success does not automatically render Bitcoin redundant; BTC could still emerge as a cross-border store of value despite CBDCs."
Claude, your CBDC redundancy bet hinges on a binary outcome. Speculation: even with successful CBDCs, Bitcoin could still gain as a cross-border, non-sovereign store of value and liquidity bridge, especially where policy uncertainty persists. The ‘deflationary fiat’ view understates demand from jurisdictions with capital controls and from institutions seeking diversification. The 2040 $1M path would still hinge on regime risk, energy costs, and regulatory clarity—areas your critique leaves underexplored.
The panel agreed that the $1M Bitcoin price target by 2040 is overly simplistic and ignores key risks and factors such as volatility, regulatory headwinds, and competing stores of value. They also debated Bitcoin's unique value proposition and potential risks from central bank policies and Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs).
Potential failure of fiat monetary policy and Bitcoin's role as a 'debasement hedge'
Regulatory headwinds and competition from Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs)