Criticism of Common Valuation Models

In comments shared on the social media platform X, PlanC argued that several popular quantitative approaches used to estimate Bitcoin’s fair value may be fundamentally flawed. Methods such as ordinary least squares (OLS) regression and linear quantile regression, which are frequently applied in financial modeling, were specifically highlighted as potentially misleading when applied to Bitcoin’s long-term price behavior.

Using these traditional techniques, analysts often arrive at fair value estimates ranging between $118,000 and $130,000. However, PlanC believes those figures rely on statistical assumptions that fail to reflect how Bitcoin’s price structure evolves over time. According to the analyst, the models overlook important structural shifts that have gradually altered Bitcoin’s long-term growth pattern.

The Role of “Decay” in Bitcoin’s Price Model

A key element of PlanC’s argument centers on what the analyst describes as a “decay” effect within Bitcoin’s price distribution. In statistical terms, this effect appears most clearly at the median level, or the 50th quantile, where the growth curve of the model gradually weakens over time.

Because of this dynamic, PlanC suggests that static or purely linear models are not well suited for estimating Bitcoin’s fair value. Instead, models that incorporate time-dependent decay functions may produce more realistic results.

When applying alternative mathematical approaches—including logarithmic, hyperbolic, and log-normal decay functions—PlanC’s model calculates Bitcoin’s current fair value at roughly $100,000 to $101,000. This range is significantly lower than the estimates produced by several traditional regression-based models.

Why Lower Quantiles Behave Differently

Interestingly, PlanC noted that this decay effect does not appear uniformly across all quantiles. At the first quantile, for example, no noticeable decay is present. As a result, calculations at lower quantile levels produce results that closely match those generated by standard linear quantile regression models.

However, the difference becomes more pronounced at the median level. According to the analyst, this is where the largest distortion occurs when traditional modeling techniques are used, leading some valuation frameworks to overestimate Bitcoin’s fair value.

A New Perspective on Bitcoin’s Valuation

Based on the model presented by PlanC, Bitcoin’s statistically derived fair value currently sits near $101,000. The analyst argues that models projecting significantly higher values are often built on assumptions that do not fully account for the evolving nature of Bitcoin’s long-term price behavior.

As the cryptocurrency market matures, analysts continue experimenting with different frameworks to better understand Bitcoin’s valuation. PlanC’s approach introduces another angle to the debate, highlighting how alternative statistical models may reshape the conversation around Bitcoin’s true market value.

You can also freely share your thoughts and comments about the topic in the comment section. Additionally, don’t forget to follow us on our Telegram, YouTube, and Twitter channels for the latest news and updates.

The post Senior Analyst Reveals Where Bitcoin “Fair Value” May Actually Be appeared first on Coin Engineer.

PlanC: “The Q4 Peak Is a Statistical Misconception”

Crypto analyst PlanC recently criticized the idea that Bitcoin must top out in Q4, calling it statistically unsound.

“Assuming Bitcoin is guaranteed to peak at the end of this year goes against basic probability theory,” PlanC explained. He likened the logic to flipping a coin three times and getting tails, then betting everything that the fourth flip must also land tails. According to him, basing conclusions solely on three previous cycles does not constitute meaningful statistical evidence.

Are Bitcoin Halving Cycles Still Relevant?

PlanC also suggested that the traditional halving cycle model may no longer apply to Bitcoin’s trajectory. He pointed to new dynamics in the market, such as the rise of corporate Bitcoin treasuries and the billions of dollars flowing into U.S.-based spot Bitcoin ETFs.

“There is no fundamental reason for a peak in Q4 2025 other than psychological momentum or a self-fulfilling prophecy,” he said.

Q4: Historically Bitcoin’s Strongest Quarter

Still, history shows that Q4 has often been Bitcoin’s strongest-performing period. Since 2013, the fourth quarter has averaged an 85.42% return. But analysts caution that past performance does not guarantee future outcomes. In fact, if the halving cycle remains a factor, Bitcoin could enter a downtrend as early as October.

Diverging Expert Opinions on Bitcoin

Market experts are far from united on Bitcoin’s year-end outlook:

• Steven McClurg, CEO of Canary Capital, estimates there’s a greater than 50% chance that Bitcoin reaches between $140,000 and $150,000 this year before a potential bear market in 2026.

• Matt Hougan, CIO at Bitwise, believes the bull cycle will last longer, stating, “I’d bet 2026 is an up year.”

• On the more bullish side, Arthur Hayes (BitMEX co-founder) and Joe Burnett (Director of Research at Unchained) have both predicted Bitcoin could hit $250,000 before the end of 2025.

You can also freely share your thoughts and comments about the topic in the comment section. Additionally, don’t forget to follow us on our Telegram, YouTube, and Twitter channels for the latest news and updates.

The post Is the Year-End Bitcoin (BTC) Peak Expectation Statistically Flawed? appeared first on Coin Engineer.