Key Notes
- VanEck’s Matthew Sigel sees a possible $500,000 Bitcoin valuation in this cycle or the next, using half of gold’s market capitalization as a benchmark.
- VanEck’s separate 2050 base case values Bitcoin at $2.9 million, conditional on much wider trade settlement and central-bank adoption.
- Sigel says AI demand has increased the value of miners’ power access, with some operators signing 10–20-year leases with investment-grade customers.
Bitcoin could reach $500,000 in the current market cycle or the next if it captures a larger share of gold’s monetary role, according to Matthew Sigel, VanEck’s head of digital assets research. His outlook combines a bullish adoption thesis with warnings about quantum computing and a separate investment case for miners serving the AI economy.
In a Bitcoin Magazine interview released on October 2, Sigel described half of gold’s market capitalization as VanEck’s medium-term benchmark for Bitcoin. He put the corresponding price around $500,000, while leaving open whether that level would be reached in this cycle or a later one.
The figure is a conditional valuation scenario rather than a dated promise. Sigel also said VanEck had abandoned its earlier $180,000 target at the end of last year, anticipating a more difficult 2026 and gaining exposure partly through equities benefiting from AI demand.
Gold Sets the Benchmark for $500,000 Bitcoin
Sigel’s argument focuses on gold’s use as a monetary asset. He estimated that roughly half of gold serves monetary purposes, with the remainder used in industry and jewelry, and said VanEck treats that portion of its market value as a reference point for Bitcoin’s potential.
That framework differs from simply extending a recent rally. It assumes Bitcoin gains a larger role in storing and transferring wealth. The gold market’s size can also change, making the $500,000 figure an approximate benchmark rather than a fixed mathematical endpoint.
Sigel said Bitcoin remains about three times as volatile as gold, an important distinction when comparing the assets. He nevertheless emphasized portability: moving physical bullion across borders requires transport and logistics, whereas Bitcoin can be transferred digitally without shipping the underlying asset.
He also described Bitcoin’s recent correlation with gold as being at a multi-year high. Separately, he pointed to the Bitcoin-to-gold ratio, which fell near 16–17 over the summer against a prior peak around 40, as an argument for possible relative upside. That comparison is distinct from the much larger $500,000 valuation scenario.
The 2050 Model Depends on Global Adoption
Sigel’s longer-term argument goes beyond gold. He said Bitcoin could approach $3 million by 2050 if it captures a meaningful portion of world trade, including energy transactions, as existing reserve currencies lose market share.
VanEck’s January 8 valuation model gives a more precise base-case figure of $2.9 million. Its assumptions include Bitcoin settling 5%–10% of international trade and 5% of domestic trade, alongside central banks holding 2.5% of their assets in BTC.
The published model implies approximately 15% compound annual growth from its year-end 2025 reference price. That is a modeled long-term rate, rather than a prediction of smooth annual gains. VanEck explicitly describes the scenarios as hypothetical, with actual results potentially differing substantially.
Sigel also pushed back when the interviewer attributed a five-year, $1 million forecast to him, saying he did not think he had made that call. His answer returned to the gold benchmark and the separate 2050 framework.
Recovery Signals Support the Institutional Case
For the current market, Sigel pointed to summer signals of capitulation and seller exhaustion, followed by ETF demand supporting the recovery. He said VanEck had argued since August that investors would become more willing to buy declines.
CoinScreamer’s earlier ChainCheck coverage examined the firm’s August assessment of a potential market floor. That research identified eight active capitulation signals out of 12, while acknowledging the limits of its historical sample. It provides context for Sigel’s recovery thesis rather than proof that another low is impossible.
Sigel argued that Bitcoin’s market structure has improved since the previous downturn. He credited ETFs with addressing custody problems for investors using those products and pointed to leverage moving toward venues such as CME and public-company balance sheets.
On that basis, he said Bitcoin itself does not need additional regulation, while distinguishing it from other digital assets. This was his assessment of Bitcoin’s institutional access and market structure, rather than an announcement of a regulatory change.
The emphasis on fund demand echoes Citi’s recent forecast upgrade, which CoinScreamer covered after the bank lifted its 12-month Bitcoin target to $113,000. The two outlooks have different horizons and should not be treated as interchangeable targets.
Quantum Risk Remains Unresolved
Sigel called quantum computing a real risk and said Bitcoin’s community needs to address it over the next few years. He noted that the network has no chief executive who can simply order a software update, making coordination among developers and stakeholders important.
He said he was encouraged by growing engagement on the issue and development work supported through Brink, a nonprofit that funds Bitcoin developers. Even so, he did not describe the risk as solved. His position was that it warrants attention without currently justifying a sale of Bitcoin.
Miners’ Power Access Creates an AI Opportunity
Sigel’s separate thesis for mining equities centers on access to electricity and grid connections. AI’s growing power needs have increased the value of miners’ existing energy arrangements, creating opportunities to repurpose infrastructure for new customers.
He said some operators have signed 10–20-year leases with investment-grade counterparties, reducing their share prices’ dependence on Bitcoin as contracted revenue becomes more important. The long durations refer to those leases, rather than a blanket claim that all miners have secured decades of electricity supply.
Sigel sees additional flexibility in infrastructure that can serve either Bitcoin mining or AI, depending on economics. That argument concerns the businesses owning the sites and power access; it does not, by itself, establish when Bitcoin will reach his price benchmark.
Disclaimer: CoinScreamer is an independent media brand owned and operated by NuvexMedia LLC, publishing news, research, and market insights on digital assets and related technologies. NuvexMedia LLC invests in and collaborates with companies across the digital asset, blockchain, and technology sectors. These relationships do not influence CoinScreamer’s editorial coverage, and the publication maintains full editorial independence to provide accurate, timely, and objective information. © 2025 NuvexMedia LLC. All rights reserved. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal, tax, investment, financial, or other professional advice.
