"I think Bitcoin, you know, it's coming up on two trillion dollars again. I think super easily it's a $15 trillion asset." @MarkYusko, CEO and CIO of Morgan Creek Capital, on why that number isn't hopium but arithmetic: His fair value model runs on Metcalfe's law: a network's value scales with its users, and Bitcoin's user growth has priced it below the curve. The monetary side does the rest. $10 trillion issued in the last five years, as much as the first 245 years of the United States combined. Inflation that quietly removes half your purchasing power over thirty years. Scarcity, in his read of currency history, wins that argument every single time. But the detail that makes him credible is the one bulls usually hide: returns shrink as Bitcoin grows. The path to $15 trillion takes 5 to 10 years, moves through a slow "crypto spring" first, and the fast part only arrives after the next halving. Smaller multiples, longer waits, he says it out loud. The institutional Bitcoin case has quietly changed shape. It's no longer "100x or nothing", it's a maturing asset converging on a $15 trillion fair value as the denominator debases. Less exciting. Far more fundable. His model, his call. The question it leaves: if the upside is 7x over a decade instead of 100x over a cycle, does that make Bitcoin less interesting, or finally investable?