Category: Crypto

The Bitcoin bull market is heating up, and investors are eagerly searching for data-driven insights into when the next Bitcoin price peak could occur and how high Bitcoin may climb. In a recent analysis video published by Bitcoin Magazine Pro, lead analyst Matt Crosby meticulously crunched the numbers to provide a mathematically backed forecast for Bitcoin’s next bull cycle peak.

By combining historical patterns, moving averages, and diminishing returns, Crosby’s research highlights August 24, 2025, as a critical date—projecting a price range of $256,000 to $310,000 for Bitcoin.

Watch the Full Analysis

To explore the detailed mathematical breakdown and see how Matt Crosby arrives at these projections, watch the full video analysis here.

The Pi Cycle Top Indicator: A Historical Compass

Crosby begins his analysis with the Pi Cycle Top Indicator, a tool famed for its accuracy in predicting Bitcoin’s price peaks within just a few days during previous bull markets. The indicator uses two moving averages:

The 111-day moving average (111DMA).The 350-day moving average (350DMA) multiplied by two.

The “Pi” connection arises from the mathematical ratio between these numbers, approximating 3.142. Historically, when the 111DMA crosses above the doubled 350DMA, Bitcoin has hit its market cycle top:

2017: Predicted the peak within 1 day.2021: Called the exact day of the price cycle peak.

Turning Data Into Predictions

To project the next peak, Crosby introduces the Pi Cycle Oscillator, which quantifies how close the two moving averages are to crossing. Using Bitcoin Magazine Pro’s raw data API, Crosby calculated:

The rate of change for the moving averages.Current trends starting from November 16, 2023, when the oscillator began a new upward trajectory.

Assuming the current trend holds, the two averages are set to cross on August 24, 2025, marking the likely bull cycle peak date.

What About the Price?

To estimate Bitcoin’s price at this projected peak, Crosby examines historical patterns of diminishing returns—a phenomenon where Bitcoin’s price peaks are proportionally smaller with each cycle:

In 2013, Bitcoin’s price was 440% above the moving averages.In 2017, it dropped to 299% above.In 2021, it shrank further to 32% above.

By extrapolating this trend, Crosby provides a range of potential price outcomes:

If returns diminish to 28% above the moving averages (consistent with prior cycles), Bitcoin could peak at $310,000.If returns continue to shrink at a faster rate, the peak could land closer to $256,700.

Why This Matters for Investors

Crosby emphasizes that no analysis is perfect, and trends evolve as new market dynamics emerge. Institutional adoption, macroeconomic factors, and unexpected events could all reshape this trajectory. However, his analysis offers a valuable data-driven roadmap for investors navigating the current bull market.

As the next cycle unfolds, these predictions will become increasingly precise—providing opportunities for investors to optimize their strategies.

Key Takeaways:

Date Prediction: August 24, 2025.Peak Price Range: Between $256,000 and $310,000.Indicator: Pi Cycle Top and Bottom Oscillator, powered by Bitcoin Magazine Pro data.

For access to live data, powerful indicators, and more exclusive content, visit BitcoinMagazinePro.com.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Always conduct your own research before making investment decisions.

Company Name: Gridless

Founders: Janet Maingi, Erik Hersman and Philip Walton

Date Founded: August 2022

Location of Headquarters: United States | Operations in Kenya, Malawi and Zambia

Number of Employees: 10

Website: https://gridlesscompute.com/

Public or Private? Private

Gridless doesn’t just mine bitcoin — it helps to facilitate the electrification of rural Africa, which is notably improving the lives of those who previously either didn’t have access to power or couldn’t afford it.

Gridless’ co-founder Janet Maingi explained to Bitcoin Magazine how the company’s facilities, which are based in Kenya, Malawi and Zambia, have a win-win-win effect for the company itself, the Bitcoin network and the communities that benefit from Gridless’ operations.

“Our mission is to mine Bitcoin profitably,” Maingi told Bitcoin Magazine. “But as we do this, we also do two other things: we push electrification out to the edge in Africa and we decentralize the Bitcoin network, which has historically been very centralized to North America and China.”

In just over two years, Gridless has set a new standard for the type of impact a Bitcoin mining company can have, showing the world that Bitcoin mining can have a symbiotic relationship with the communities it touches and that it can be a catalyst for human flourishing.

I sat down with Maingi in person in Kenya after this year’s Africa Bitcoin Conference to discuss the work she does and the impact it has on the communities it reaches.

A transcript of our conversation, edited for length and clarity, follows below.

Frank Corva: How does Gridless help to electrify Africa?

Janet Maingi: About 600 million Africans have no access to electricity. That’s about two-thirds of our population. The private sector has stepped in because the main grids do not reach everyone on the continent.

You’ll find that bigger cities like Nairobi or Mombasa have electricity, but if you go to rural Africa, people have no access to electricity because of distribution challenges.

A slide from Gridless co-founder Erik Hersman’s presentation at the Africa Bitcoin Conference.

So, the private sector came and started setting up mini-grids. Private companies have done the best they can with these mini-grids. However, they’re very capital intensive, and so there are struggles with fundraising. And even when you actually get them set up, the consumers around your area might not be very wealthy. They’re just living day-to-day. They may have to consider “Do I need electricity or do I need food?”

The companies that construct the mini-grids build power plants that use hydro energy. Let’s say they want to build one that produces one megawatt of energy, but the community only ends up using 200 kilowatts. There’s 800 kilowatts that they generated from the river, but for that 800 kilowatts, they get zero shillings, zero dollars, zero anything.

So, we at Gridless come in and say “That electricity that you’re not able to send to anyone, is what we want.” That’s what you call stranded power or wasted energy, and it’s what we want. So, we become your buyer of last resort.

We come and create an agreement to use that extra electricity, and from a revenue sharing perspective, we work together. It’s a win-win situation. Our data centers use that electricity to mine bitcoin.

But then the catalyzing of electrification comes in. When we’ve used that electricity, it’s become a source of revenue for the energy power plant. They were not making money on that electricity previously, and now they’re profiting from it.

What have we seen as the effect? One, they are able to extend their reach, to distribute electricity further. And secondly, some of them have been able to actually lower their prices. So, consumers who are within their reach but wouldn’t use the electricity because of the cost are suddenly saying, “Hey, hook me up. I can afford to pay for this now.”

Another slide from Hersman’s Africa Bitcoin Conference presentation.

Corva: So, in a sense, you’re subsidizing the rate of electricity.

Maingi: Yes, because we come in and use this power, the energy generator is able to give better prices and increase its reach. So, again, what does this mean? More homes getting lit, more small enterprises getting electricity, more factories getting powered and more health centers getting electricity. You can now imagine the upward spiral effect.

However, the challenge is that doing business in Africa is like an extreme sport.

Corva: Why is that?

Maingi: So, let’s start with just getting the equipment. The mining machines come from China, either from Bitmain or MicroBT, or you’ll get them from a company in the U.S., and the process of getting them into Africa can be painful.

We received a batch that came from the U.S. and it took us 60 something days just to get them into the country. This is from putting them on a ship to getting them here. This doesn’t include figuring out the logistics around getting the miners on site and going through pre-shipment inspection to make sure that they meet the Kenyan standards.

It’s a process that takes almost 120 days from start to end. If you’re running a business, and it takes you 120 days to get your product on the ground, it’s painful.

Secondly, these machines are designed to work very well in China or the U.S.

Conditions in Africa are different, though.

Corva: Does this have anything to do with air quality?

Maingi: Air quality, dust, heat. In Kenya, average temperatures range from 20 to 40 degrees Celsius. So, when you power those machines in an environment where the average temperature is 30 degrees Celsius, you can imagine the heat that they have to deal with.

And then there’s dust. When you get a pre-fitted container from China or somewhere, you discover that the designers just focus on inflow and outflow. But we realized we have issues with dust, so we have to put dust filters on the machines.

And then, in 2022, we learned when we set up the first site that, because of the lights on the miners, they attracted bugs. During the rainy season, the bugs could see the lights and flew into the fans and got mashed up — something nobody thought about.

Lastly, the containers initially were going to cost us $100,000 each, which was too much for us to be profitable. The math didn’t math, as we say. So, we sat down and designed our own container.

Corva: Amazing.

Maingi: Right? And that’s what we’ve been deploying at a quarter of the price. And then the advantage that came with being made in Kenya has allowed us to get passage through the COMESA (Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa) region, without having to pay extra duties or taxes because it’s recognized as a COMESA product.

That also helped because, being made in Kenya, it’s very easy for us to move the containers around the COMESA region without having to pay extra taxes. We get a tax exemption. Even if the containers from China made sense, if we brought them to Kenya and I had to move them to Uganda, I would have to pay taxes to Uganda, too.

Any country you move foreign products to, you have to pay taxes again. So, it’s been hard, but good solutions have come out of the difficulties.

Have you heard of GAMA, the Green Africa Mining Alliance?

Corva: Yes.

Maingi: During the first Africa Bitcoin Mining Summit last year, we released a blueprint of the container we designed. So, anyone who wants to use it to build their own container using our blueprint can feel free to do so.

Where you need our support, we’ll be ready to guide you. That’s the whole thing about GAMA — How do we exploit our synergies? How do we benefit from one another? How do we find a young lady who wants to start mining and walk her through the journey of getting started?

Corva: Incredible. I want to go back to electrification in Africa. You mentioned earlier that you wanted to share some numbers.

Maingi: What I was saying is that there’s a ripple effect when we partner with the energy generator. We’ve been able to see more homes or households getting connections.

If you’ve been in rural Kenya or Africa, then you understand how one bulb can transform a life. I’ll use the example of children coming home from school. They have assignments and use these tiny paraffin lamps to study. The fumes from them are horrible for their health. But this is a child for whom there’s no plan B. The teacher expects this child to come back to school with her assignments completed. Not having electricity is not an excuse.

A guy once told me that sometimes, when his daughter is busy doing an assignment, the paraffin runs out. When the nearest gas station is almost four miles away, who is going to go and look for paraffin at that time? Nobody. Tough luck.

So, the child gets to school and is either in trouble because she didn’t do her assignments or is now lagging behind because now those quote unquote “are yout personal problems.” Because of that one bulb they now have, he was like, “My daughter is performing so well in school.” Then, health wise, all these visits they used to make to the hospital because she was breathing in the paraffin fumes no longer happen.

Corva: It seems you want to make my cry.

Maingi: No, there’s no crying. (Author’s note: This woman doesn’t play.) It’s a reality.

Then, in Zambia, I remember talking to women who were talking about childhood vaccinations. Between zero and three years, there are certain vaccinations recommended by the WHO that your kid needs to get — measles, polio, etc. — but the nearest health center that has them sometimes isn’t close.

So, you do your math, and you’re like, “I can’t afford bus fare to do this.” And so this disease sounds more serious, I’ll get my child the vaccination for that one, while this one I’ll pass on. But really all of them are important for children.

Now, Gridless is coming into Malawi and getting electricity providers to connect more homes in the Bondo area. Health centers are getting powered on, so more vaccines are available in more local health centers.

A slide on energy use in Malawi and the UK from Hersman’s presentation.

While before you used to say “Polio sounds serious, I’ll get my child that vaccine, but with measles, I don’t know who has died of that recently, so maybe, I won’t get my child that one,” now more people can get it.

Now, we will have a young generation who, we believe, as we keep doing this, is going to thrive. They’re going to grow. You’ll possibly get rid of childhood mortalities because these rural areas get electrified.

Corva: And bringing energy to these regions also helps support livelihoods I assume.

Maingi: Yes, of course. There’s a tea factory in Muranga, Kenya, which is in the highlands.

We partnered with the energy generator in the area and they were able to give the factory power. Now, their facilities are able to support the tea factory, which has two benefits: tea farmers can bring their tea to the factory, which means it doesn’t spoil on the farms because they can’t get it to point B in time and more employment has also been created just by that tea factory becoming an electrified space.

We keep saying why we know this will make a difference is because energy is a base of human progress.

Corva: There’s no such thing as an energy poor country that’s rich.

Maingi: If you look at the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, it used to go food, shelter, clothing, but I put energy there. Energy is a basic need. It’s a must have for anybody to actually be allowed to live a decent life. For people to make a decent living, energy has to be in that math.

A slide on energy production from Hersman’s presentation.

Corva: Is it true that you’ve recently created software that helps with energy demand response?

Maingi: Yes. We realized that we need to get more proactive in creating real-time demand response. Before, we were either reacting too late or too early to the power available.

Remember we’re the buyer of last resort, so communities come first and small businesses come second. For us to be able to live up to that promise, we had to make sure we weren’t sucking in electricity that was required by somebody else at that time.

So, let me paint a picture. In normal households, people wake up at 6 a.m., so there’s a surge of electricity. At that stage, our software gets a signal and reduces our consumption to meet the demand needed by the grid. Then, at 8 a.m., everybody goes to school and switches off their lights and there’s too much electricity in the grid. That’s when we power more mining machines.

We get the signal, power more machines, suck in the electricity and keep on going until maybe 6 p.m. when people have gotten back home and they need the electricity. Gridless turns down their machines and returns the electricity.

At 10 p.m. they all go to bed, and we power up more machines. This is all done with software we developed internally called Gridless OS. It allows for real-time demand response. It makes it so everybody gets what they need, and it stabilizes the grid.

Corva: Are you setting certain standards with Gridless that others are following in Africa or in other parts of the world?

Maingi: It’s set a trend that people are following. Sometimes you go to conferences and people keep referring to Gridless. That’s when you realize, “My God, this thing is bigger than we thought.” And so you start to understand how this has made a difference, that it doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

At the end of the day, everyone has different ways of mining bitcoin, and there’s a positive impact to the community whichever way you do it. Look at Bigblock Datacenter — Sebastian Gouspillou in the Congo — where they’re using the heat to dry cocoa for chocolate they sell. Think of what that has created for that economy.

Corva: I think Sebastian brought me to tears when I met him, too.

Maingi: What’s exciting for us and other players within this space is that we are the ones who understand our problems, and it’s exciting to see African companies deciding “Not only will I mine bitcoin profitably and decentralize the network, but there’ll be some benefit to our community, as well.”

A university education is often considered to be the best path to superior lifetime earnings and financial freedom. Actual earnings seem to bear this out. People with a four-year degree make far more over their lifetimes than those without—about 75% according to this study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. But this path must be weighed against alternatives. Bitcoin is also an excellent investment, with a 71% average compound annual growth rate (CAGR) over the past ten years. The growth trajectory of bitcoin has created an alternative path to financial freedom. What if we invested in bitcoin instead of time and tuition for university? Which would yield more over a career?

Valuing university education

The price of a university education has vastly outpaced inflation, with tuition going up more than 250% in inflation-adjusted dollars in the past 40 years and 830% in nominal terms. Furthermore, many observers claim that universities have shifted focus over time toward politicization and controlling speech more than free inquiry and entertainment of students more than quality education, leading many parents to question the investment. Parents and students are rightly asking now whether university is worth the investment. Confidence in higher education has dropped precipitously from 57% in 2015 to 36% in 2023. Students are beginning to vote with their feet; college enrollment has dropped in the US for recent high school graduates from a high of 70% in 2009 to 61% in 2023. Parents and students are looking for other options.

Even the 75% college wage premium is misleading. The reality is that the group of students who achieve a four-year degree tend to be smarter and harder working than those who go to work right out of high school. This number doesn’t tell us what the premium would be for an individual student who could achieve a four-year degree but chooses not to.

In his book The Case Against Education, Bryan Caplan makes the case that the college wage premium drops considerably when considering an individual student rather than the group. His extensive data analysis shows that the college wage premium drops in half when isolating an individual student of comparable ability in high school and college. That is, the college wage premium is closer to 38% for an individual. The same individual who would earn $1M over a lifetime of wages without a degree would be expected to earn $1.38M with a degree.

Even this adjustment overestimates the added value of college, where Caplan calculates that approximately 80% of the added value is merely signaling—demonstrating to employers that the student is the kind of student who has the characteristics to achieve a four-year degree and be successful in the workplace. Only 20% is actually added value from education.

In addition to the cost of university and the relatively small gains, students sacrifice four years of lost wages while they are in school. This four years could be invested not only in making money but in gaining valuable skills that would make them more competitive and useful in the marketplace after four years.

Valuing bitcoin investment

Bitcoin represents an entirely new asset class—a digital asset whose supply remains absolutely scarce regardless of demand. As governments demonstrate a complete inability to say no to borrowing and printing new fiat money, both sophisticated investors and ordinary people are looking for an asset that can’t be inflated by any powerful individual, government, or bank. As the world continues the process of becoming familiar with bitcoin and adding it to their holdings, absolute scarcity means the price of bitcoin can only trend up in the long term. This is borne out in bitcoin’s superior returns over its lifetime that has exceeded every other common asset class in 11 out of 14 years. Bitcoin’s 71% CAGR over the past 10 years has dwarfed the 11% that the S&P 500 has yielded in the same period.

Bitcoin has superior scarcity, portability, and verifiability compared to gold. It has a very low cost of ownership and little jurisdictional risk. It has some immunity to regulatory risk compared to other assets. The properties of bitcoin strongly suggest that it will significantly eat into the existing store of value of gold, bonds, real estate, and stocks.

Michael Saylor has recently published a 21-year price forecast for bitcoin. His bear case estimates a 21% CAGR, a base case 29%, and a bullish case 37%. If bitcoin has returns like this, students and parents need to consider this alternative closely before investing tuition money up front and forgoing four years of income and practical skill development.

Another price model, the power-law model promoted by @Giovann35084111 and others, has demonstrated remarkable fidelity to price over the history of bitcoin. This model predicts more rapid growth early on with gradually decreasing returns as bitcoin matures. It posits that the price of bitcoin on average increases in proportion to time raised to the sixth power, where time refers to total time since the genesis block. This model projects about a 45% CAGR in the coming year, falling gradually to around 25% in ten years.

Comparing the two

We look at both options as investment in capital—a university education as an investment in human capital and bitcoin as an investment in an appreciating capital asset.

The cost of a university education involves both direct costs and opportunity costs: 1) paying four years of university tuition and 2) forgoing four years of income and valuable job experience. The payoff is an expected wage premium of 38% over a career. The alternative we consider here is to invest in bitcoin beginning on Day 1 the funds that were saved for tuition. In addition, we assume that parents pay living expenses for four years in either scenario. Thus, living expenses are not added to the cost of the university option and are not subtracted from the non-university wages. Instead, all of net salary is used to buy bitcoin at the end of each year for the four years that the parents would have otherwise supported a student at university.

We assume in both scenarios that the salary grows by 3% per year. This is intended to account for inflation as well as real growth. Dollar values and models are assumed to be in nominal values and are not adjusted for inflation. Since we are comparing two scenarios across the same time frame, the exact level of inflation has very little impact on the relative performance of the two.

Tuition varies dramatically across university categories. For the year 2024-2025, in-state tuition at a ranked public university in the U.S. averages $11K per year. Out-of-state tuition runs $25K per year. Students attending a private college will pay an eye-watering $44K per year. And Ivy League tuition will set families back $65K per year. Community colleges cost less than four-year universities. In addition, some students will qualify for scholarships and other financial aid. And some may live in places where tuition is free (well—paid for by further fiat money printing).

Let’s consider two cases—an in-state public university and free tuition. We assume in the bitcoin alternative that the amount of yearly tuition is used to purchase bitcoin annually as a kind of dollar-cost averaging to spread the risk of the time of entry in the market.

For the bitcoin price model, we consider two scenarios: the Saylor bear case (21% CAGR) and the power-law model that starts with a higher return and gradually falls over time, in keeping with its historic power-law curve.

We compare results over a 40-year career (4 university years + 36 working years for the university case). We assume that the base non-college take-home pay is $30K per year, and the annual college premium is calculated so that the total lifetime premium is 38%. We assume the non-college path saves the bitcoin purchased with tuition money and the first four years of take-home pay and nothing after that. The college path purchases bitcoin with the college wage premium each year and lives off of the same take-home pay as the non-college path.

In each plot we show three values over time:

Non-College Investments: Dollar value of bitcoin from purchases made from saved tuition and wages earned in first four yearsCollege Investments: Dollar value of bitcoin from purchases made from college wage premium each yearCollege Premium Savings: Dollar value of cumulative savings from college wage premium (not invested in bitcoin)

To give the college option the most favorable possible treatment, we assume that the college wage premium is also invested in bitcoin each year.

Results

Even in the Saylor bear case (21% CAGR), investing tuition money and the first four years of income in bitcoin far outperforms the college wage premium over a career. The college wage premium never catches up even after 40 years. Because of the bitcoin investment in both scenarios, both are very attractive. If we define financial freedom as having $5M in bitcoin savings, that is achieved in 20 years for the non-college path and in 25 years for the college route. By comparison, merely saving the college premium in fiat without investing in bitcoin is an abysmal strategy, returning less than 1/200 of the non-college path and about 1/100 of the college path with bitcoin investment.

Now let’s suppose your student gets free tuition, either through a scholarship or government-subsidized tuition. In that case the only advantage the non-college route has is to save four years of income before being on the same footing as the college route.

The results show that even in this case the non-college route yields a better return simply by being able to invest four years of salary instead of deferring superior wage by four years.

What if the bitcoin power law continues to match the appreciation of bitcoin? We consider both public university tuition and free tuition.

In this case the non-college path dramatically outperforms the college path, whether or not tuition is free. The public university tuition alternative with the power law achieves financial freedom ($5M) in only 15 years from high school—at age 33.

Other scenarios

What happens if these scenarios are overly optimistic for the performance of bitcoin? If we drop the bitcoin CAGR all the way down to 10% for the public university case, the two scenarios basically break even. If we go all the way down to a 5% CAGR, it still takes 18 years for the college path to pay off relative to the non-college path.

What if the college path prepares the student for a more lucrative career—like engineering, medicine, or law—where the college path may be the only option for those careers and where the college wage premium may be much higher? In the case of a public university with a 21% bitcoin CAGR, the premium must be 113% to reach the breakeven point over a 40-year career.

That’s not the whole story. Medicine and law require even more years of deferred wages and even more tuition than a four-year degree. Assuming eight years of deferred wages and eight years of public university tuition (surely an underestimate for medical or law school tuition), the college wage premium must be a towering 300% just to break even. Engineering appears to be the sweet spot here—preparation for a professional career in four years with a larger-than-average expected wage premium. Even here, however, the required breakeven premium of 113% is a tall order.

If you’d like to investigate other scenarios, here is a Google Sheet where you can experiment with the parameters and even look at the formulas I used to create these calculations.

Broader considerations

This analysis narrowly focuses on the financial payoff of a capital investment. It doesn’t consider personal satisfaction derived from the alternative paths, motivation, the networking benefits of a university, the personal growth experience of a university vs. working directly from high school, and many other factors. It also doesn’t consider the potential volatility of bitcoin, either concerning the uncertainty or the additional stress of riding the bitcoin rollercoaster.

If the thesis concerning bitcoin appreciation is anywhere close to accurate, these findings suggest that a non-university path with a bitcoin savings strategy is likely to be financially advantageous compared to a university education path even with a bitcoin savings strategy. This conclusion frees up students and parents to give more subjective consideration to other paths that may fit their personality, values, and goals. Bitcoin not only gives a path for financial freedom but a path toward greater freedom in career choices less constrained by financial or academic factors.

This is a guest post by Stan Reeves. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

Jeremy Rubin released a proposal two weeks ago titled Un’FE’d Covenants (FE = Functional Encryption). Given the ongoing debate over covenant proposals for Bitcoin the last year or two, his proposal marks a new practical option. All covenant proposals so far require a soft fork (actual opcodes), the development and implementation of unproven cryptography (Functional Encryption), or an absurdly high monetary cost to use (ColliderScript).

Jeremy’s proposal requires no softforks, and does not impose a burdensome and impractical cost on users to utilize. The trade off for that capability is a radically different security model. By using a system of oracles, and BitVM based bonds capable of slashing, covenants can be emulated on Bitcoin right now.

The Oracles

The first part of the scheme is obviously the oracles that enforce different covenant conditions. This is a relatively straightforward set up, and the first building block necessary for Jeremy’s proposal. The oracle has custody of the funds in this scheme, and is entrusted with the enforcement of the covenant conditions. You want the oracle to not have to locally keep track of the covenant conditions being enforced for each coin it custodies. This introduces state risk where if the oracles database is corrupted or lost it has no idea how to handle honest enforcement for everyone’s coins. In order to get around this problem, Jeremy makes use of Taproot.

Schnorr based keys can be “tweaked” by using the hash of data to modify a public key. This enables the tweaking of the corresponding private key to be able to sign for the modified key, as well as prove that whatever data was used to tweak the public key is committed to by that key. Having the oracle generate a key, and then the user tweaking that key with their covenant program allows a commitment to what the oracle is supposed to enforce while keeping the burden of storing that information on the user.

Oracles can also be federated in order to minimize the trust required in a single party to enforce things. From here, users can simply load the resulting address, and whenever they want to enforce the condition, approach the oracle(s) with the spending transaction, the oracle program, and the witness data necessary to prove that the transaction given to the oracle meets the conditions of the covenant. If the transaction is valid according to the covenant rules, the oracle signs it.

For any simple covenant where the outcomes are known ahead of time, such as CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY (CTV), users can immediately have the oracle pre-sign the transactions enforcing the covenant and simply delay using them until necessary.

An important scenario to consider requiring extra functionality is state based covenants, such as rollups, that progress regularly and have an actual state (the current balance of users) to keep track of. In the case of such covenants, the transactions the oracle signs must commit to the current state of the covenant using OP_RETURN so that the oracle can efficiently verify each transaction updating the rollup or other system without having to download witness data for the entire history. This is to keep the oracle from having to store state locally themselves, which as noted above creates risks.

In the long term the data requirements of oracles can be optimized by using zero knowledge proofs, so that the oracle can simply verify a proof that the transaction they are being asked to sign follows the rules of the covenant without having to verify the raw witness data for larger more complex covenants. Again though, in the case of systems like rollups, care must be taken in designing them to guarantee that data required to exit the system is made available to users so they have it in their possession if they need to contact the oracle directly to reclaim their funds.

The BitVM Bond

So far the scheme is entirely trusted. You are essentially just giving someone else your money and hoping they can be trusted to enforce the conditions of arbitrary covenants. By modifying the scheme above slightly, this can be secured with a crypto-economic incentive rather than pure trust.

Above it was described how OP_RETURN is required to be used to track state for stateful covenants. OP_RETURN can also be used to publish the witness data of any covenant transactions to prove the conditions were correctly fulfilled.

A BitVM circuit can be constructed to verify whether a transaction signed by the oracle successfully matches the conditions of the covenant it is enforcing. Remember that the key itself that is generated and funds sent to commits to the conditions of any covenant being enforced. Meaning that data, as well as a transaction being spent from the address, can be fed into a BitVM instance.

Oracles can then be required to post a collateral bond with a BitVM operator (who must also post a bond for the Oracle to claim if they are falsely accused). This way, as long as the bond value is greater than the value secured in covenants by an oracle, the system can be securely used. There would be no way for an oracle to violate the conditions of a covenant they are enforcing without losing money in aggregate.

Trade Offs

There are clear trade offs here that are materially worse than simply implementing covenants in consensus rules. Firstly, the oracle must be online and reachable in order to make use of oracle enforced covenants. With the exception of pre-signed covenants such as CTV, if the oracle is offline when users need to enforce a covenant, they can’t. The oracle must be present to sign.

Secondly, the liquidity requirements for oracle bonds can become massive if the system was ever widely adopted. This makes it unbelievably inefficient compared to native implementation of covenant opcodes at the consensus level.

Lastly, the extra data required to be posted on-chain in order for the BitVM bond scheme to work is much less efficient with use of blockspace than native covenant implementations.

Overall, the proposal is nowhere near as efficient and secure as native covenants. On the other hand, if we do wind up in the worst case scenario of pre-mature ossification, this is a very workable way to shoehorn covenants into Bitcoin without depending on unproven cryptography or completely impractical costs imposed on end users.

Jeremy has given us a worst case scenario option to expand the design space of what can be built on Bitcoin. 

As Bitcoin continues to mature, one of the most telling indicators of its longevity and integration into the broader financial ecosystem is the rapid growth of Bitcoin Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs). These products—offering mainstream, regulated exposure to Bitcoin—have garnered substantial inflows from both institutional and retail investors since their inception. According to data aggregated by Bitcoin Magazine Pro’s Cumulative Bitcoin ETF Flows Chart, Bitcoin ETFs have already accumulated more than 936,830 BTC, raising the question: Will these holdings surpass 1 million BTC before 2025?

The #Bitcoin ETFs have already accumulated 936,830 #BTC! 🏦

Will this surpass 1,000,000 BTC before 2025? 🪙

Let me know 👇 pic.twitter.com/UojJpJlC4P

— Bitcoin Magazine Pro (@BitcoinMagPro) December 16, 2024

The Significance of the 1 Million BTC Mark

Crossing the 1 million BTC threshold would be more than a symbolic milestone. It would indicate profound market maturity and long-term confidence in Bitcoin as a credible, institutional-grade asset. Such a large amount of Bitcoin locked up in ETFs effectively tightens supply in the open market, setting the stage for what could be a powerful catalyst for upward price pressure. As fewer coins remain available on exchanges, the market’s long-term equilibrium shifts—potentially raising Bitcoin’s floor price and reducing downside volatility.

The Trend Is Your Friend: Record-Breaking Inflows

The momentum is undeniable. November 2024 saw record inflows into Bitcoin ETFs, surpassing $6.562 billion—over $1 billion more than the previous month’s figures. This wave of capital inflow dwarfs the rate of new Bitcoin creation. In November alone, just 13,500 BTC were mined, while more than 75,000 BTC flowed into ETFs—5.58 times the monthly supply. Such an imbalance underscores the scarcity dynamics now in play. When demand vastly outpaces supply, the natural market response is upward price pressure.

A Chart of Insatiable Demand

In a landmark moment, BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF recently outpaced the company’s own iShares Gold Trust in total fund assets. This moment was captured visually in the November issue of The Bitcoin Report, revealing a clear shift in investor preference. For decades, gold sat atop the throne of “safe haven” assets. Today, Bitcoin’s emerging role as “digital gold” is validated by ever-growing institutional allocations. The appetite for Bitcoin-backed ETF products has become relentless, as both seasoned investors and new entrants acknowledge Bitcoin’s potential to serve as a cornerstone in diversified portfolios.

In less than a year BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF surpassed it’s gold fund.

Long-Term Holding and Supply Shock

One key characteristic of Bitcoin ETF inflows is the long-term nature of these investments. Institutional buyers and long-term allocators are less likely to trade frequently. Instead, they acquire Bitcoin through ETFs and hold it for extended periods—years, if not decades. As this pattern continues, the Bitcoin held in ETFs becomes essentially removed from circulation. The result is a steady drip of supply leaving exchanges, pushing the market toward a potential supply shock.

This trend is clearly illustrated by the latest data from Coinglass. Only about 2.25 million BTC currently remain on exchanges, highlighting a persistent decline in readily available supply. The chart below (provided separately) shows a divergence where Bitcoin’s price appreciation continues upward, while the exchange balances head down—an irrefutable signal of scarcity dynamics at work.

The available balance of Bitcoin on exchanges is in an increasing downtrend.

A Perfect Bitcoin Bull Storm and the March Toward $1 Million

These evolving dynamics have already propelled Bitcoin beyond the $100,000 milestone, and such achievements could soon feel like distant memories. As the market rationalizes a potential journey towards $1 million per BTC, what once seemed like a lofty dream now appears increasingly feasible. The “multiplier effect” in market psychology and price modeling suggests that once a large buyer comes into play, the ripple effects can cause explosive price surges. With ETFs continually accumulating, each major purchase may ignite a cascade of follow-on buying as investors fear missing out on the next leg up.

Incoming Trump Administration, the Bitcoin Act, and a U.S. Strategic Reserve

If current trends weren’t bullish enough, a new and potentially transformative scenario is brewing on the geopolitical stage. Incoming President-elect Donald Trump in 2025 has expressed support for the “Bitcoin Act,” a proposed bill directing the Treasury to establish a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. The plan involves selling part of the U.S. government’s gold reserves to acquire 1 million BTC—about 5% of all currently available Bitcoin—and hold it for 20 years. Such a move would signal a seismic shift in U.S. monetary policy, placing Bitcoin on par with (or even ahead of) gold as a cornerstone of national wealth storage.

With ETFs already driving scarcity, a U.S. governmental move to secure a large strategic Bitcoin reserve would magnify these effects. Consider that only 2.25 million BTC are available on exchanges today. Should the United States aim to acquire nearly half of that in a relatively short timeframe, the supply-demand imbalances would become extraordinary. This scenario could unleash a hyper-bullish mania, pushing Bitcoin’s price into previously unthinkable territory. At that point, even $1 million per BTC might be viewed as rational, a natural extension of the asset’s role in global finance and national strategic reserves.

Conclusion: A Confluence of Bullish Forces

From near-term ETF inflows surpassing new issuance fivefold, to longer-term structural shifts like a potential U.S. Bitcoin reserve, the fundamentals are stacking in Bitcoin’s favor. The growing scarcity, combined with the multiplier effect of large buyers entering the market, sets the stage for exponential price appreciation. What was once considered unrealistic—a Bitcoin price of $1 million—now sits within the realm of possibility, underscored by tangible data and powerful economic forces at play.

The journey from today’s levels to a new era of Bitcoin price discovery involves more than just speculation. It’s supported by a tightening supply, unyielding demand, rising institutional acceptance, and even the potential imprimatur of the world’s largest economy. Against this backdrop, surpassing 1 million BTC in ETF holdings before 2025 may be just the beginning of a much larger story—one that could reshape global finance and reimagine the very concept of a reserve asset.

For the latest insights on Bitcoin ETF data, monthly inflows, and evolving market dynamics, explore Bitcoin Magazine Pro.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Always do your own research before making any investment decisions.

Bitcoin investors received a jolt of optimism on Fox Business’ Mornings With Maria on December 13, 2024, when Digital Chamber founder and CEO Perianne Boring unveiled a staggering price prediction. Speaking with host Maria Bartiromo, Boring suggested that bitcoin could surge to $800,000 in 2025 under economic proposals set forth by President-elect Donald Trump.

Personnel is policy: Perianne Boring pic.twitter.com/52IPUr2owR

— Mornings with Maria (@MorningsMaria) December 13, 2024

Boring’s insights underscore how policy-driven macroeconomic factors could catalyze bitcoin’s ascent to historic highs. With its fixed supply, bitcoin’s unique scarcity positions it to thrive under conditions of increased adoption and favorable policy environments—a scenario Boring believes Trump is poised to create.

Trump’s Bitcoin Vision: A Policy Blueprint for Growth

The conversation with Bartiromo highlighted several proposals that could act as a tailwind for bitcoin’s growth. “What President-elect Donald Trump has proposed, what he’s outlined to our community, would absolutely solidify the United States’ leadership in the digital asset and blockchain technology ecosystem,” Boring stated.

She pointed to Trump’s famous bitcoin speech in Nashville, where he laid out a vision of building a national bitcoin stockpile and leveraging tax policy to attract economic activity into the space. Boring emphasized the importance of addressing regulatory challenges: “He wants to clear up a lot of these regulatory friction points for the industry. The U.S. has driven out activity under the Biden administration. We need leadership at the very, very top to bring these markets back to the United States.“

Regulatory Clarity on the Horizon?

Boring also addressed the ongoing confusion between the SEC and CFTC regarding oversight, which has driven significant innovation out of the U.S. She shared optimism about Trump’s personnel choices, including potential appointments like Paul Atkins for SEC chair and Brian Quintens for CFTC leadership. Both figures, she explained, bring technical and industry expertise needed to restore clarity and confidence to the market.

“Paul Atkins is absolutely committed to bringing that regulatory clarity,” Boring said. She also noted Quintens’ history of advocating for self-regulation in the digital asset market, adding that both leaders could “put us in the right step.”

A Historic Price Catalyst?

When Bartiromo raised the topic of price projections, Boring delivered the show-stopping prediction that captured investors’ imaginations: “The stock-to-flow model says it’s going to be at over $800,000 by the end of next year. If Donald Trump is successful in putting forth a lot of the proposals that he’s proposed to the community, the sky is the limit because bitcoin has a fixed supply.“

This bullish outlook aligns with models that measure bitcoin’s price trajectory relative to its halving cycles and its immutable monetary policy. The fixed supply cap of 21 million bitcoins contrasts sharply with the inflationary tendencies of fiat currencies, positioning bitcoin as a potential store of value in uncertain economic times.

Market Insights for Bitcoin Investors

While ambitious, the $800,000 price target reflects a growing belief among market analysts that supportive policies, reduced regulatory friction, and a resurgence of U.S.-led innovation could create the perfect storm for bitcoin adoption. Investors should watch closely as Trump’s administration shapes the landscape.

The alignment of fiscal policy, regulatory reform, and institutional confidence could reignite bitcoin’s trajectory. For those holding or considering allocations, the evolving policy backdrop could represent a pivotal moment in bitcoin’s maturation.

Adding to the bullish sentiment, Eric Trump, a prominent American businessman, Executive Vice President of the Trump Organization, and son of President-elect Donald Trump, made headlines at the Bitcoin MENA event in Abu Dhabi on December 10. Speaking to a captivated audience, he confidently predicted that Bitcoin would someday reach $1 million per BTC. This bold forecast aligns with the Trump family’s increasing advocacy for Bitcoin and its transformative potential in global finance. Eric Trump’s statement not only underscores the administration’s pro-Bitcoin stance but also reinforces the positive feedback loop of institutional and policy support driving long-term price appreciation. 

With potential catalysts on the horizon, one thing is certain: 2025 could be a defining year for bitcoin’s role in the global financial system.

Follow Frank on X.

Before I even arrived at this year’s Africa Bitcoin Conference, I saw attendees posting about Tando, a new Kenya-based payments app that allows users to spend their sats with merchants who don’t accept bitcoin.

Just arrived in Nairobi 🇰🇪🛬 & the 1st thing I see as I exit is the @tando_me sign

LET’S GO @AfroBitcoinOrg 🙌🏾 pic.twitter.com/zhPSP2dTH8

— OKIN | Nikolai Tjongarero (@OKIN_17) December 8, 2024

“How is this possible?”, you might ask. Well, let me explain.

To use Tando, you simply download the app and prepare to pay any merchant who accepts payments via M-PESA, Kenya’s mobile money service. (Notice I didn’t say you had to go through a set up or KYC process, as neither are necessary — Tando doesn’t collect any identifying information from its users.)

When the merchant presents you with your bill, you simply click on the “Send Money” square on the app’s home screen. From there, you enter the mobile number tied to the M-PESA account to which you’re sending money and then input the amount of Kenyan shillings you want to send.

The app automatically calculates the amount of sats it will take to cover the shilling amount you’ve input. You then click on the green “Create Invoice” button to obtain a Lightning invoice. After that, you copy the invoice and pay it via your preferred Lightning wallet. Tando receives the sats and then settles the bill in shillings with the merchant within seconds.

I can barely count how many times I’ve watched Bitcoiners use Tando to pay restaurant bills or taxi fares since I’ve been here. (I’ve been to a lot of restaurants and have ridden in a lot of taxis since I’ve arrived.)

Now, I know what some of you are thinking: Tando interfaces with a fiat payment system, which means it should be excommunicated from the Church of Bitcoin.

But before you allow yourself to entertain that kind of thinking, please consider the following notions:

You’re a loser.Here in Kenya, much like in other parts of Africa, people actually use bitcoin for payments.When you show someone how to use Tando, it provides you with an opportunity to show the merchant what Bitcoin is as you show them how the app works. (I watched Gorilla Sats’ Brindon Mwiine masterfully do this for a waitress at a conference after party.)M-PESA requires that its users KYC and some Kenyan citizens don’t have the proper documentation to do so, which means they’re excluded from the system. Using Tando, they can be included in Kenya’s broader monetary system.

The excitement around Tando at the conference was part of the broader enthusiasm around apps that make bitcoin easier to use across the African continent — apps like Bitsacco, Machankura, Fedi and Bitnob.

Massive shout out to the devs making #Bitcoin wallets easier to use.@bitsacco @Machankura8333 @fedibtc @tando_me @Loicbtc pic.twitter.com/UhVw5bnBxO

— Frank Corva (@frankcorva) December 11, 2024

African Bitcoiners are far ahead of their counterparts in the United States when it comes to using bitcoin as it is intended to be used — as peer-to-peer electronic cash.

And while many Africans are working tirelessly to onboard as many merchants as they can to Bitcoin, Tando is an excellent intermediary step that allows Bitcoiners to spend their sats even if the merchants with whom they’re spending don’t yet accept bitcoin payments.

Follow Nikolaus On 𝕏 Here For Daily Posts

An Austin, Texas man, Frank Richard Ahlgren III, has been sentenced to two years in prison for filing false tax returns that underreported the capital gains from selling $3.7 million worth of bitcoin, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced today.

According to the DOJ, Ahlgren was an early Bitcoin investor who began purchasing bitcoin in 2011. In 2015, he acquired 1,366 bitcoins through his Coinbase account, a year in which the price of bitcoin peaked at approximately $495 per coin. By October 2017, Bitcoin’s value had surged, and Ahlgren sold 640 bitcoins for $5,807 each, totaling a gain of $3.7 million. He then used the proceeds to purchase a home in Park City, Utah.

However, when filing his 2017 tax return, Ahlgren misrepresented the gains by inflating the cost basis of his bitcoin purchases, claiming he had acquired the coins at prices higher than market rates. This misreporting significantly reduced the reported capital gains.

Between 2018 and 2019, Ahlgren sold additional bitcoins worth over $650,000 but failed to report these transactions on his tax returns entirely. In an attempt to conceal his gains, he transferred funds through multiple wallets, exchanged bitcoin for cash in person, and using mixers to anonymize his bitcoin transactions.

In total, the DOJ stated that Ahlgren’s actions resulted in a tax loss exceeding $1 million.

“Frank Ahlgren III earned millions buying and selling bitcoins,” said Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart M. Goldberg of the Justice Department’s Tax Division “But instead of paying the taxes he knew were due, he lied to his accountant about the extent of a large portion of his gains, and sought to conceal another chunk of his profits through sophisticated techniques designed to obscure his transactions on the bitcoin blockchain. That conduct today earned him a two-year sentence.”

The U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pitman sentenced Ahlgren to two years in prison, followed by one year of supervised release. Additionally, Ahlgren was ordered to pay $1,095,031 in restitution to the U.S. government.

“Ahlgren will serve time because he believed his cryptocurrency transactions were untraceable. This case demonstrates that no one is above the law. My team at IRS Criminal Investigation has the expertise and tools to track financial activity, whether it involves dollars, pesos, or cryptocurrency,” said Acting Special Agent in Charge Lucy Tan of IRS-Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI)’s Houston Field Office. “This case marks the first criminal tax evasion prosecution centered solely on cryptocurrency. As the prices for cryptocurrency are high, so is the temptation to not pay taxes on its sale. Avoid the temptation and avoid federal prison.”

The Bitcoin Fear and Greed Index is a sentiment analysis tool that captures the collective mood of Bitcoin traders and investors. Spanning a scale of 0 to 100, the index identifies market emotions ranging from extreme fear (0) to extreme greed (100). While it’s a popular resource among many analysts, it certainly has some doubters! So, let’s look at the data to quantifiably prove if this index can actually help you make better investment decisions.

Investor Emotion

The Fear and Greed Index aggregates various metrics to provide a snapshot of market sentiment. These metrics include:

Price Volatility: Large price swings often evoke fear, especially during downturns.

Momentum and Volume: Increased buying activity generally signals greedy sentiment.

Social Media Sentiment: Public discourse about Bitcoin across platforms reflects collective optimism or pessimism.

Bitcoin Dominance: Higher dominance of Bitcoin relative to altcoins usually indicates cautious market behavior.

Google Trends: Interest in Bitcoin search terms correlates with public sentiment.

By synthesizing this data, the index provides a simple visual representation: red zones signify fear (lower values), while green zones indicate greed (higher values).

Figure 1: Bitcoin Fear & Greed Index.

View Live Chart 🔍

What you’ll also immediately notice is that this tool really outlines how mass psychology is almost always best acted on as a contrarian. Essentially ,if everyone is bearish, you should probably be more bullish and vice versa.

Does Acting Contrarian Work?

To evaluate whether the Fear and Greed Index is more than just a colorful chart, a test was conducted using data dating back to February 2018, when the metric was created. The strategy implemented was straightforward:

Allocate 1% of your capital to Bitcoin on days when the index reads 20 or below, and sell 1% of your Bitcoin holdings on days when the index reaches 80 or above. If such a basic strategy performed fairly well, then we can definitely deem it a useful tool for investors.

Figure 2: Raw API data converted to visualize the index on TradingView.

The Results

This strategy significantly outperformed a simple buy-and-hold approach. The above Fear and Greed Strategy produced a 1,145% return on investment, whereas a Buy & Hold Strategy achieved a 1,046% ROI over the same period. The difference, though not monumental, demonstrates that carefully scaling into and out of Bitcoin based on market sentiment can yield better returns than simply holding the asset.

Figure 3: Fear & Greed strategy outperformed Buy & Hold.

The Fear and Greed Index is rooted in human psychology. Markets tend to overreact in both directions. By acting counter to these extremes, the strategy effectively leverages irrational and emotional market behavior. By scaling in during fear and out during greed, the strategy mitigated risks and compounded profits to outperform one of the world’s best-performing assets.

Keep in mind that this strategy was only profitable with proper trade management by slowly scaling in and out over macrocycles and doesn’t take into consideration any fees or taxes that may be liable. Conditions can remain irrationally fearful or greedy for months at a time, and trying to massively increase exposure or take profits purely based on this metric is unlikely to be successful in the long term.

Conclusion

Despite its simplicity, the Fear and Greed Index has proven its merit when used thoughtfully. It aligns with the principle of “buy when others are fearful, sell when others are greedy,” which has guided many successful investors.

The Fear and Greed Index should be used alongside other tools such as on-chain data and macroeconomic indicators for confluence, however the data proves this is definitely a metric worth considering within your own analysis.

For a more in-depth look into this topic, check out a recent YouTube video here: Does The Bitcoin Fear & Greed Index ACTUALLY Work?

Explore live data, charts, indicators, and in-depth research to stay ahead of Bitcoin’s price action at Bitcoin Magazine Pro. 

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Always do your own research before making any investment decisions.

Follow Aaron on Nostr or X.

An X post by Anita Posch warning about the risks of governments and institutions buying up large amounts of bitcoin went viral this week— even if just because of the trollish community note that appeared underneath it. I think the main concern here is that these big holders could influence the Bitcoin consensus rules to impose censorship.

When it comes to censorship specifically, mining centralization is actually a more direct threat. But if it’s just miners censoring, it would only last for as long as a majority of miners is willing to keep doing it— at the expense of forfeiting transaction fees. If and when the censorship stops, transactions would start confirming again as if nothing happened.

If economic nodes were to enforce censorship as new protocol rules as well, however, it can indeed be considered a soft fork. In this scenario, miners can’t revert from the censorship without splitting the blockchain between “upgraded” (censoring) and non-upgraded nodes; that would constitute a hard fork. Buyers and sellers of the two versions of bitcoin would then determine which blockchain is more valuable; this is why some bitcoiners are concerned about governments and other large institutions accumulating a significant share of the bitcoin supply.

It’s a reasonable concern, and something to be aware of. At the same time (and similar to my argument in this Take), it’s not obvious to me that governments or large institutions would be willing to risk it all by betting on a censorship fork of Bitcoin. But even more importantly, there isn’t much we can do to stop governments or other institutions from buying bitcoin anyways— nor should there be, as that would (ironically) itself represent a form of censorship.

The best countermeasure, in this regard, was actually already proposed by Nikolaus: Don’t sell MicroStrategy your bitcoin.

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.