Bitcoin’s Price Prediction: Will Global M2 Point to $300,000?

A chart circulating in crypto circles claims global money supply points to Bitcoin hitting $250,000 to $300,000, and prominent voices are taking it seriously. But the math behind it hides a flaw that lets anyone bend the prediction to fit…

Bitcoin is trading at $82,965 as of October 11, 2026, down 5.3% so far this year. Yet, a frequently shared global M2 Bitcoin chart circulating in crypto discussions posits a much higher potential price.

Bill Barhydt, CEO of the crypto firm Abra, recently referenced this chart on The Pomp Podcast. He stated, “If you look at the charts that everybody likes to show with global M2 versus Bitcoin, they’re all saying Bitcoin should be around 250 to 300k-ish in that range,” in an episode aired on October 8.

Many who share this chart may not fully understand what it measures or how it was constructed. So, can the amount of money in the world really indicate where Bitcoin’s price is headed?

Understanding global money supply and Bitcoin

M2 measures how much money exists in an economy, including cash, checking accounts, and easily accessible savings like money market funds. The global M2 aggregates these figures across major economies, providing a rough estimate of the total money available worldwide.

The chart that often gets shared compares this global total with Bitcoin’s price. Most versions of the chart adjust the money supply line forward by a certain number of weeks, based on the belief that newly created money takes time to flow through banks and markets before reaching riskier assets like cryptocurrencies.

This approach has its charm. Bitcoin has a capped supply, meaning if the money supply—dollars, euros, and yuan—keeps rising while Bitcoin’s supply remains fixed, each coin should, theoretically, become more valuable. Simon Dixon echoed this view on The Pomp Podcast, commending Bitcoin for having “a monetary policy which you can rely upon with a fixed supply.”

Flaws in the money supply prediction model

However, choosing the money supply line is subjective. Changing the number of weeks in the shift alters the chart’s suggested “fair” price for Bitcoin, so the prediction can change whenever the creator adjusts the timeframe.

First, while some correlations may hold, they don’t explain why this new money is flowing into Bitcoin rather than other assets like stocks or gold. For instance, U.S. M2, a significant portion of the global total, hit a new peak in August, yet Bitcoin is down 5.3% this year.

Jordi Visser offered one perspective on this potential connection on September 19’s episode of The Pomp Podcast. He suggested Bitcoin often trades on liquidity, since its real-world use hasn’t fully emerged yet. If true, the connection between money supply and Bitcoin’s price might weaken as other factors take over.

Second, chart creators often select the forward shift after analyzing past data. They can test different time lags against historical prices and choose the one that aligns best, making the chart look accurate in hindsight while offering little insight into future movements.

Most critically, this overlay creates a price target that lacks a set timeline. This makes it unfalsifiable; no outcome can definitively prove it wrong since proponents can always argue that the price hasn’t reached the predicted level yet.

Evaluating future price claims

To his credit, Barhydt didn’t claim any specificity in his prediction. He said this price range “feels right to me based upon where the markets are going,” indicating judgment rather than a precise calculation.

He also quoted a speaker from a treasury conference, without claiming the view as his own: “if bitcoin’s not at 300k in 24 months, then my thesis on Bitcoin was completely wrong.” This statement is testable because it provides a specific timeframe for evaluation.

However, those promoting the chart in this discussion have not published a track record, making it hard for readers to gauge how often their predictions align with reality. Treat any claims about its accuracy with skepticism unless the authors present both successful predictions and misses.

While money supply illustrates the liquidity around Bitcoin, it doesn’t provide a clear price forecast. An increasing money supply can lift risky assets, but the global M2 chart lets its creator dictate the lag and set a price target without a deadline. It also fails to outline the path from $82,965 to $300,000, which would require new capital to flow into Bitcoin rather than stocks or gold within a specified timeframe.

The dated 24-month claim presents the clearest opportunity for evaluation. Readers can assess Bitcoin’s price 24 months following Barhydt’s October 8 episode. If it hasn’t touched $300,000 by that time, the conference speaker has already said the thesis was wrong. Furthermore, if the chart’s forward shift subtly changes after a mismatch occurs, it’s likely being adjusted post-hoc to fit Bitcoin’s price.