Bitcoin · a personal thesis
After eight years of holding through every drawdown and halving, I've stopped trying to guess tops. Instead I anchor to the one part of the model that has actually held, the support line, and to a number the model and the loudest buyers both land on, for the same underlying reason: ~30% a year.
01 / THE THESIS
For a while I kept hearing the CEOs of Bitcoin treasury companies put Bitcoin's long-run return at roughly 30% a year (call it the next ten to twenty years). It's oddly specific, and oddly consistent across people who don't coordinate. For a while I treated that agreement as if it meant something on its own.
It doesn't, and that's the first thing to be honest about. Giovanni Santostasi's power law, where price tracks a straight line on a log–log chart against time since the 2009 genesis block, has a support line whose near-term forward growth works out to around 30% a year. The CEOs and the model aren't two independent oracles landing on the same figure. They're two descriptions of one curve. Anyone honestly extrapolating Bitcoin's decelerating log-growth ends up in the same neighbourhood, because they're all reading the same fifteen-year history. So the agreement isn't a second witness, and I won't dress it up as one. The single fitted curve is the signal. The "convergence" is just what that one curve looks like when several people describe it out loud.
And 30% itself isn't a constant or a recurring magic number. It's a snapshot of where the maths lands from here, today. Two things stack to produce it: a line-to-line growth rate that's already decaying (high-20s% over the coming decade, easing toward the teens over twenty years), plus a one-time bonus from Bitcoin currently sitting near its floor and drifting back toward fair value. Change the horizon, or start from a point above the floor, and the number moves. 30% is true for this starting point and this horizon, not a law I can bank on staying put.
So what I'm actually anchoring to isn't the agreement, and it isn't a fixed return. It's the one structural feature of the model that has held through every drawdown, halving, and capitulation in my eight years of holding: the support line. I use it as a reference for where Bitcoin is cheap against its own history, not as a promise about what it will pay.
02 / STRESS TEST
Putting the thesis down honestly means stress-testing it, not just admiring it. Here's where it's solid and where I've had to tighten my thinking.
Where it holds
The arithmetic is real. Run the power-law exponent (about 5.7) forward from today and the line-to-line growth rate comes out near 29% over a ten-year horizon, easing toward the low-20s% over twenty years. Because Bitcoin currently sits close to its floor, projecting from here up to the model's fair-value line two decades out lands right around 30%. You capture a little extra from reverting off the floor toward trend. So "the support line projects ~30% CAGR" isn't a vibe. It's what the maths says for the next decade.
The convergence isn't a coincidence. As section 01 lays out, the CEOs and the power law are two descriptions of one curve, so their agreement confirms the framing above rather than acting as a second, independent vote.
Their described behaviour matches the model even if they never name it. Michael Saylor, the most vocal of them, doesn't forecast a flat 30%. He describes a declining rate (roughly 44% easing to 40, 35, 30, 25 and onward, averaging out near 30) that reaches around $13 million per coin by 2045. That declining shape is the unmistakable fingerprint of a power law (an exponential model could never describe itself that way), and his $13M target sits almost exactly on the power-law fair-value line. So whether or not he's "using" it, what he's describing is it.
Anchoring to the support line is the right choice of line. Above the floor, Bitcoin's price is dominated by sentiment, leverage, and liquidity, which are noisy and not reliably predictable in timing or size. The support line is the most constrained, most empirically reliable part of the whole model. If I'm going to anchor to anything, anchoring to the predictable boundary and ignoring the chaotic region above it is internally consistent.
Where it bends
30% is a declining average, not a constant. This is the easiest trap and the one I'm most careful about. If I bake a flat 30% into a fifteen-year plan, I'll overestimate the back half. The model, and Saylor's own description, has the rate bleeding down toward the high-teens and low-20s over time. I treat 30% as a near-term figure that decays, not a locked annual return.
The CEO number is corroboration, not proof. A Bitcoin-treasury CEO is the single most incentivised person alive to project a high-but-credible-sounding Bitcoin return. It's "talking their book" to attract capital to their own stock. Since the opening already grants that their agreement isn't a second, independent witness, the only honest weight to give it is small: it leans on the same chart and the same hope, so I let it colour the picture without double-counting it as evidence for the model.
The conservatism of "support" lives in the price level, not the growth rate. The floor, fair-value, and ceiling lines are parallel: they share the same exponent, so they imply the same CAGR. Choosing the support line doesn't give me a lower assumed growth rate. It gives me a lower assumed price level. In effect I'm planning as if Bitcoin might only ever trade at its historical floor. That's the genuinely conservative bet, but I shouldn't kid myself that "support" automatically means "lower return assumption."
Model risk is permanent. The fit is descriptive, not a law of nature. It's sensitive to the window you fit it on, and the floor has broken before, briefly, during the March 2020 crash. A fifteen-year regularity is strong, but it is a regularity, not a guarantee. To keep myself honest about that, the model's parameters are frozen and published in advance with a stated break condition, a sustained close below the floor, that would count against the thesis. I don't get to refit the line to erase it.
Saturation is the long-horizon headwind. Compounding at 30% off today's ~$1.2T is a very different proposition from sustaining it once Bitcoin is a $20T-plus asset. The absolute inflows required grow enormous, and real-world adoption could decelerate faster than the curve assumes. The power law already bakes in deceleration, and reality may decelerate harder.
03 / IN PRACTICE
The support line is my valuation and accumulation anchor: a way to judge when Bitcoin is cheap relative to its own history, to size my expectations at a declining ~20–30%, and to keep me from panic-selling into drawdowns that the model treats as routine visits to the floor. It is not a price target, a guarantee, or a promise that the floor can't break.
Held that way, the thesis is disciplined rather than wishful: I'm anchoring to the most reliable part of the best-fitting model, using a number that stands up on its own maths and happens to match what the most committed institutional buyers are publicly underwriting. The conviction comes from the convergence and the track record, not from believing anyone has a secret.
Want to see the model itself? Read the floor explained simply, or run the numbers in the calculator.
Build "The Thesis" — the landing page of powerlawfloor.com. It is a personal investment
essay arguing for anchoring a Bitcoin strategy to the power-law "floor." It should read like a
beautifully typeset long-form editorial, not a dashboard. Output one self-contained page.
── SHARED DESIGN SYSTEM (used across the whole site) ──
• Dark, premium, editorial. Google Fonts: Fraunces (display serif), Hanken Grotesk (body),
JetBrains Mono (mono).
• CSS tokens: --bg:#0f1115 --bg2:#1a1d24 --bg3:#14171d --border:#2a2e37 --border2:#23272f
--text:#e6e8eb --muted:#9aa0ab --dim:#6b7280 --accent:#f7931a(bitcoin orange) --blue:#5b9bff
--red:#ff6b6b --green:#4ade80.
• Body: two faint fixed radial gradients (orange top-left, blue top-right); line-height ~1.75;
content centered in .wrap (max-width 760px, 1.5rem side padding); custom orange ::selection.
• Sticky top nav: brand "🟠Bitcoin Power Law" left, page links right; on mobile it collapses to
a hamburger and hides on scroll-down / reappears on scroll-up.
• Header pattern: mono orange kicker (.72rem, letter-spacing .22em, with a short 30px leading
rule via ::before); big Fraunces h1 (clamp(2.2rem,6vw,3.6rem)) with ONE phrase in italic
orange <em>; a muted .lede (~1.18rem) whose <b> is full-strength text.
• Sections: padding 2.4rem 0, separated by a 1px top border; open with a mono orange .sec-num
("01 / …") then a Fraunces h2 (1.9rem). <strong>=pure white, <em>=full-strength text. Links
orange with a faint orange bottom-border that brightens on hover.
• .claim card: bg --bg2, 1px border + 3px LEFT orange border, rounded right only
(0 12px 12px 0); muted body, white leading <strong>. A .bend variant uses a red left border.
• .sub-head: mono uppercase, letter-spacing .18em, with a trailing 1px rule filling remaining
width; a green .holds and a red .bends variant.
• .caveat: red-tinted gradient box, 3px red left border, italic muted text.
• Voice everywhere: first person, calm, honest, self-critical, no hype, no price predictions.
── PAGE CONTENT ──
HEADER kicker "Bitcoin · a personal thesis"; h1 "Putting my stake down:" <br> "the
<em>power-law floor</em> thesis"; lede: 8 years holding through every drawdown/halving, stopped
guessing tops, anchors to the one part of the model that has held — the support line — and to a
number that keeps recurring from different directions: ~30% a year.
SECTION 01 / THE THESIS (h2 "The thesis")
• (.big) Bitcoin-treasury CEOs keep saying ~30%/yr long-run; oddly specific and consistent
among people who don't coordinate.
• Then it clicked: Giovanni Santostasi's Bitcoin power law (price ≈ a straight line on a
log–log chart vs time since the 2009 genesis) has a support line whose forward growth is
~30%/yr over the coming decade — same number, different door.
• Not claiming the CEOs secretly run the regression; doesn't matter — the number stacks up on
the power law independently. "The convergence is the signal. The source is a footnote."
• Close: after 8 years through every drawdown/halving/capitulation, anchor to the one part of
the model that has actually held — the support line.
SECTION 02 / STRESS TEST (h2 "The adjustments — where this holds, and where it bends")
Intro on stress-testing honestly. A green .sub-head "Where it holds" with four .claim cards,
then a red .sub-head "Where it bends" with five .claim.bend cards. Bold lead-ins + substance:
HOLDS:
• "The arithmetic is real." exponent ~5.7 → ~29% over 10y easing to low-20s% over 20y; near
the floor, projecting up to fair value ≈30%; maths not a vibe.
• "The convergence isn't a coincidence." everyone extrapolating the same 15-yr decelerating
log-growth lands in the same place; CEOs and the power law describe one curve.
• "Their described behaviour matches the model even if they never name it." Saylor describes a
DECLINING rate (~44→40→35→30→25…) averaging ~30, reaching ~$13M/coin by 2045 — a power-law
fingerprint; $13M sits on the fair-value line.
• "Anchoring to the support line is the right choice of line." above the floor it's
sentiment/leverage/liquidity (noisy); the floor is the most constrained, reliable part.
BENDS:
• "30% is a declining average, not a constant." don't bake a flat 30% into a 15-yr plan.
• "The CEO number is corroboration, not proof." they're the most incentivised to talk their
book; same chart, same hope; don't double-count.
• "The conservatism of 'support' lives in the price level, not the growth rate." floor/fair/
ceiling are parallel (same exponent → same CAGR); support lowers the assumed PRICE LEVEL,
not the growth rate.
• "Model risk is permanent." descriptive, window-sensitive; floor broke briefly in March 2020;
a regularity, not a guarantee.
• "Saturation is the long-horizon headwind." 30% off ~$1.2T differs from sustaining it at
$20T+; reality may decelerate harder than the curve.
SECTION 03 / IN PRACTICE (h2 "How I'll actually use it")
• Support line = valuation & accumulation anchor: judge cheapness vs own history, size
expectations at a declining ~20–30%, avoid panic-selling routine visits to the floor. NOT a
price target/guarantee/promise the floor can't break.
• Held that way it's disciplined not wishful; conviction from convergence + track record.
• A muted closing line linking to the "explained" page and the "calculator" page.
FOOTER
• .caveat: "This is a personal investment thesis and a record of my own reasoning, not
financial advice. Bitcoin is volatile and can do surprising things; the decisions and the
consequences are mine."
• An author's note (orange left border): the ideas are my own, inspired by @Giovann35084111's
Bitcoin power law; I used Claude Code to help build the site. "Thank you, Claude."
• A small credit line crediting the model to Giovanni Santostasi.
── SEO ──
title "The Bitcoin Power-Law Floor Thesis"; meta description about anchoring to the support line
and the ~30% CAGR floor, where it holds and bends; canonical; Open Graph (article) + Twitter
card; 🟠emoji SVG favicon; JSON-LD WebSite + Article; lang=en; responsive viewport.