Matthew Sigel of VanEck said Bitcoin could reach $1 million towards the next US presidential term.
That means a 1,150% increase target for 2031 is within a market still trying to prove it can hold the $80,000 area.
Crypto Slates The Bitcoin page shows that BTC is worth almost $80,200 as of May 9, with a market cap of almost $1.61 trillion and an all-time high of $126,198 on October 6, 2025.
A move to $200,000, another price target that has been hotly contested lately, would require Bitcoin to rise about 2.5 times from that level. Moving to $1 million would require about 12.5 times.
Bitcoin has produced bigger percentage moves before, but the current forecast cycle now rests on a market question: whether the latest institutional demand is strong enough to absorb the coins sold in the upswing.
Why seven-digit math is back
The VanEck call lands alongside other seven-figure frameworks. Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan explained one $1 million formal model in March, arguing that Bitcoin could reach seven figures by gaining market share as the store of value market grows.
In his model, the market grows to about $121 trillion in ten years, with Bitcoin reaching $1 million when it accounts for about 17% of the total.
That’s a different time horizon than Sigel’s reported five-year vision, but the logic overlaps. Both rely less on a single trading catalyst and more on Bitcoin becoming a bigger part of how institutions, advisors, sovereign entities, and younger investors think about long-term savings outside the fiat banking system.
VanEck’s own research firm had already published a longer version of that argument. In a 2024 Bitcoin 2050 scenariothe company has modeled a possible Bitcoin price of $2.9 million by 2050 if BTC becomes a meaningful medium of exchange and reserve asset.
That report used assumptions around trade settlement, reserve positions and the infrastructure for scaling Bitcoin. The newly reported call is more direct, but stems from the same broad research position: Bitcoin as a macro asset whose appreciation depends on adoption beyond crypto-native buyers.
If the position is just a trading question, the next resistance level carries the most weight. If the thesis is that adoption math, ETF flows, portfolio allocation, the behavior of government reserves and the size of the global store of value market outweigh a single weekly candle.
The short-term price framework is less clean. Fundstrat’s Tom Lee’s Bitcoin range of $200,000 to $250,000 for 2026 should also be part of the conversation.
Prior CryptoSlate Reporting had already placed Lee’s $200,000 forecast under a broad 2026 target that also included more conservative and aggressive institutional calls.
Arthur Hayes, the CIO of Maelstrom and co-founder of BitMEX, is said to be aiming for one Shorter-term goal: $125,000 tied to liquidity and war-driven spending.
Together, these calls make Bitcoin look like it is entering yet another high-target phase. Hayes’ framework is macro-liquidity and event-driven. Lee’s is a 2026 market cycle view.
Bitwise’s model is a calculation of shares based on a store of value. VanEck’s reported call compresses a seven-figure outcome into about half a decade.
That difference should keep us grounded. A cluster of bullish predictions can change sentiment, but the market structure must still support the price there. The Fear and & Greed Index is still firmly in the ‘fear’ category.
The low $80,000 test confirms the prediction
Recently CryptoSlate The reporting described Bitcoin’s rebound above $80,000 as a live test between seller supply and ETF demand. Long-term holders have amplified their gains, while spot buyers of Bitcoin ETFs have helped absorb the supply.
This impasse is why the $90,000 area keeps appearing as the next upside test.
The bullish version is simple. If demand for ETFs continues to absorb coins from older holders, the low $80,000 range could become a base rather than a ceiling. From there, a move toward $90,000 could provide the market with evidence that institutional access is doing real price research, rather than just softening a recovery.
That would still leave $200,000 as a target. However, it would make the six-figure targets for 2026 easier to discuss, without separating them from traded demand.
A market that can hold $80,000, push through $90,000, and do so based on broad spot market demand, seems more compatible with the Fundstrat-like bull scenario than a market that continues to reject the same supply zone.
The case of failure is just as important. If demand for ETFs declines while long-term holders continue to sell in rallies, the $1 million talk becomes an argument for longer-term adoption rather than an explanation for the current price.
In that case, the five- and ten-year targets can remain intellectually coherent, while the 2026 market still struggles to escape its reach.
That tension separates price targets from the evidence that would make them relevant today. Bitcoin may leave the $1 million debate unresolved for now. It should show whether the buyers who came in through ETFs and institutional channels are still willing to take up supply near levels that recently acted as resistance.
The practical threshold is therefore smaller than the largest goal on the board. A clean $90,000 push wouldn’t validate the seven-figure math, but it would show that the market can handle seller pressure while fresh capital still flows into Bitcoin products.
What would change the market signal next?
Bitcoin needs to hold the low $80,000 area and then attack $90,000 with enough spot demand to make the move look sustainable.
ETF flow data, the distribution of long-term holders, and any new confirmation of VanEck’s comments will carry more weight than another round number from an executive or strategist.
The seven-figure targets shift the debate from whether Bitcoin can regain its 2025 high and to whether the asset can claim a greater share of global savings. That’s a much bigger argument than a technical breakthrough, but it still needs the cooperation of the current market.
For now, the credible conclusion is that institutional researchers are once again willing to publish or defend seven-figure math while the market tests whether ETF-era demand can turn $80,000 from a stress point to a launch point.