No, I've claimed, generally speaking 500k in the next "cycle" (hard to define now but meaning by 2028-29) and $1M in the early 2030s. Do I think with debasement that $1M is possible by 2029? Yes.
As @JayR said, we already have pretty standard CAGR performance for BTC, so don't get all excited that it's just dipping ~20% right now from the big, quick move up in early October, something that's common even in bull markets.
Lightning was the nail in the coffin for alts. Once Lightning adoption hit critical mass after 2020. There is no legitimate argument for a use case for anything but bitcoin.
With the widespread availability of USD-denominated stablecoins (not to mention the existence of Monero as an actual privacy coin) there is no legitimate argument for the use of Bitcoin as a currency. At best, it can theoretically serve as a store of value against fiat debasement. But given that this use case implies a much lower rate of growth/compounding as Bitcoin matures (one more in line with traditional investments like gold, stocks, and real estate), there is no reason to give credence to the sort of wild price predictions we hear from Bitcoin maxis. And without the realistic anticipation of outsized returns, it's doubtful that most HODLers will remain interested in Bitcoin for long.
I can have all the fiat and stablecoins I need, using bitcoin.
You just made the case for Bitcoin right there.
Sportsball trading cards are the same, there were only a finite amount of them made yet their value drastically fluxuates year over year. The Prizm Zion Williamson Rookie Card sold for as much as $1300 in late 2019, it now sells for a $20 (a 98% drop in value).
The whole "Bitcoin only goes up because the supply is finite!" argument ties in to what I said about it being a fungible collectible token. Yes, the Bitcoin supply is finite (as of now, at least - it could theoretically be expanded in the future via network consensus, but let's go ahead and say it remains capped at 21 million). The problem is that just because something is finite does not inherently confer it value. Scarcity itself does not create value, scarcity only creates value when there is also demand for the scarce resource in question. In regard to Bitcoin, there is no natural demand for it whatsoever, because it performs no function. It literally does nothing.
I attended Zion's debut game in the Smoothie King Center in New Orleans. The expectations for Zion were off the charts at the time, but he ended up being one of the biggest-ever NBA draft busts -- constantly injured, baby-mama-dramas, prima-donna attitude, etc.
If you don't understand the fundamental distinction between stocks (literal ownership of revenue-generating businesses, and the legal right to those profits), gold (a unique metal that has been prized for literally all of recorded history) and other commodities (let's say copper, rubber, oil, or rare earth minerals, which are the building blocks of the modern global economy) and Bitcoin (a recent fad innovation that is essentially a multiplayer online collectible game with no relationship to the real-world economy), then you really don't have the economic and financial literacy to be making speculative investments. I would respectfully encourage you to eat a bit of humble pie in regard to your disastrous shitcoin investments and ask yourself how exactly you got things so wrong. Where was the error in your thinking that led you to assign value to things that turned out to ultimately be absolutely worthless? If you do this work, I think you will come to understand at least the essence of my argument, even if you still disagree with it.