What Prominent Figures at Home and Abroad Say About Bitcoin

First, the timing of the statement. Pessimism from 2018 and pessimism from 2025 rest on different premises even if worded the same way. The institutional environment changed enormously before and after spot ETF approval (January 2024), so quoting a statement without checking the date can be misleading. In fact, there are quite a few cases, like Larry Fink's, of someone shifting from strong criticism to strong support.

Second, the speaker's interests. An executive who holds a large amount of bitcoin, an asset manager earning fees on an ETF, and someone rooted in traditional banking or precious metals each speak from a different set of incentives. That doesn't mean their statements are wrong, but understanding those interests is a useful clue for understanding why they reached their conclusion.

Third, price targets are not predictions — they are outputs of a specific assumption. Quoting a scenario value that comes with a condition like 'if X% of institutional assets are allocated to bitcoin' without that condition gives it an entirely different meaning. The figures on this page should all be understood as the conditional scenarios they were at the time they were stated.

The argument optimists commonly make is the supply ceiling. A fixed issuance of 21 million coins and new supply cut in half every four years is structurally different from fiat currencies, whose issuance can be expanded by monetary policy. This is the basis for Michael Saylor calling bitcoin 'digital capital' and various asset managers calling it 'digital gold.'

The second argument is the institutionalization of access. Spot ETFs let pension funds, endowments, and advisory accounts gain bitcoin exposure without separate custody arrangements. Most optimistic price targets start from a capital-flow assumption such as '1–5% of existing financial assets get allocated.'

The third argument concerns confidence in currency. As fiscal deficits and national debt accumulate, demand grows for an asset outside government control. This logic is essentially identical to the case for gold, with the difference being the claim that bitcoin is superior in portability, verifiability, and divisibility.

The oldest criticism is the absence of cash flow. Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger have pointed out that an asset with no dividend, interest, or output relies entirely on the expectation that 'the next buyer will pay more.' From this view, bitcoin is not an investment asset but a pure price game.

The second criticism is a failure of utility. Though designed as a means of payment, it is rarely used that way in practice due to volatility, with most transactions being for holding or speculative purposes. Domestic academics repeatedly raise a similar criticism: that its asset price has been justified without ever demonstrating its function as a currency.

The third criticism is regulatory and concentration risk. A substantial share of supply is concentrated in a small number of wallets and a small number of exchanges and issuing entities, and given the market's structure, decisions by large holders are reflected in price almost immediately. The contradiction that ownership is concentrated even as decentralization is used as a selling point is frequently cited as grounds for pessimism.

Domestic discussion places more weight on 'how to incorporate it into the system' than on 'whether it has value,' unlike much of the debate abroad. Research divisions at exchanges and securities analysts increasingly argue that the four-year cycle theory centered on the halving is weakening, and that macro variables such as U.S. interest rates, ETF flows, and the regulatory calendar are now what drives price.

On the positive side, many voices see bitcoin as a scarce asset accessible to individuals and advocate long-term holding. On the other hand, academics in finance and accounting tend to argue for caution around institutional and public-fund adoption, citing volatility, investor protection, and gaps in accounting standards.

Policy debates have narrowed down to domestic spot ETF approval, allowing corporate accounts, and stablecoin regulation. In other words, much of the domestic 'outlook' is really a forecast about the pace of institutional adoption rather than a price prediction, and should be read with that in mind.

The statements summarized here are not direct quotes but the gist of remarks confirmed from public interviews, letters, and reports. For exact wording and full context, please check the original source via the linked references.

A given individual's price target or view is not investment advice. A public figure's statement is only useful as a way to gauge market sentiment, and there are numerous cases where the actual price later moved opposite to the prediction.

A speaker's position can change over time. This page is maintained as of its most recent verification date, but we recommend rechecking recent statements before citing anything here.