Published 16 Sept 2026, 01:37 UTC · fetched 6 Nov 2026, 14:18 UTC
Sminston With 👁
@sminston_with
In reply to · 16 Sept 2026, 01:37 UTC · context given to the AI
When it comes to Bitcoin price models 📈 I have a bit of a bone to pick with JAN3's new "OMEGA60" model. And no, this is not an essential fatty acid. - - - Here is the model: 60% annual growth, forever. So the name itself is fitting. It almost reads as "In the end (Omega), it will still be 60%." Always and forever. For the direct comparison to the power law model, you can see the stark difference- with a log-price axis, the power law gives the characteristic curve with 'diminishing returns,' where the O6 Model goes up and to the right indefinitely In the near-term predictions, such as by 2030, the difference doesn't seem so big. $713K vs $421K, a 2x difference. Even when looking at the $1M forecast - O6 says 2031, while power law says 2034. But by 2035, its a 5x difference... someone has to be wrong. 2040? $78.4M vs $3.6M. It only gets worse from there. So... which should we trust? (See reply)👇Indeed, with a chasm between price possibilities, that is the question. Clearly one is pointing to one HELL of an optimistic promised land for Bitcoiners on relatively short time horizon, while the other seems much more modest by comparison. Maybe we should compare methods. 🧐 Here's how J3 got to O6: They took Bitcoin's 9 calendar-year returns from 2014 to 2022, sorted them, and took the middle one. That's 2021's return, +59.7%. Round it to 60%, compound it forever from a starting level of $489 in Dec 2014, and you've got the model. (That's the whole thing. One number from one year 😳) - - - Two problems with that, people. 1. You can't compound a median. Over that same 2014-2022 window Bitcoin actually compounded at ~40% a year, NOT 60% (their own CAGR figure is 39.9%). The 60% line only "fits" because the $489 anchor sits 54% ABOVE the actual Dec 2014 price of $318. 2. The median isn't stable either. Run the same median with a different end year and it goes 34% (2018), 94% (2020), 60% (2022), 94% (2024), 77% (2025). The "cycle-proof" number moves as much as the CAGR they were trying to escape - - - To illustrate, take a look at this chart of rolling CAGRs. Bitcoin's realized 4-year growth rate has been FALLING the entire time (sorry guys, it's a fact): 2015: ~200% 2018: 84% 2022: 45% 2025: 17% The power law expects exactly that - growth of roughly 5.6 divided by Bitcoin's age in years, so ~39% today and ~20% by 2040. The exponent hasn't budged since 2018 while the growth rate halved twice. O6 draws a flat line at 60% through all of that and calls it conservative. That's why in the main post's chart, it goes up and right forever - it's a true exponential, and we know this is unsustainable. Of course, on their site they cite Weimar Germany as precedent. But are they really implying they know when a runaway effect will be occurring in time? How could anyone know? I'll take the curve that's been bending the same way for 15 years, and not a nice-sounding and briefly (no longer) nice-fitting, arbitrary straight line forever.View original on X ↗
Deterministic: the same prices and policy always give the same result
unscored Awaiting manual review
Only the end-of-horizon price counts. A brief move followed by a reversal is not a success. Read the methodology
Uses only text available at publication time
Think the interpretation or outcome is wrong? Sign in with X to request a correction, so reviewers know who is asking.
Sign in to request a correction