Timechain Wiki

Plan B

18 min read

Plan B (pseudonymous, Twitter @100trillionUSD) is the Dutch quantitative analyst who published the stock-to-flow (S2F) model for Bitcoin in March 2019 — the price-prediction framework that became, for several years, the single most-influential Bitcoin valuation model in mainstream discourse. The S2F model quantifies Saifedean Ammous's hardness framework into specific log-linear price predictions and tracked Bitcoin's 2020-2021 bull market reasonably well before substantially diverging from actual price after the 2021 peak. Giovanni Santostasi's Power Law framework has tracked actual price meaningfully better since 2021, and much of the serious Bitcoin analytical community now treats S2F as substantially falsified by post-2021 evidence. Plan B remains a major contested figure in price-modeling discourse; his pseudonymous career shapes both the model's reception and the dispute over its empirical performance.

Why Plan B matters

Plan B’s intellectual fingerprints are on the broader Bitcoin price-modeling discourse, even where alternative frameworks (notably the Power Law model) have substantially better empirical performance since 2021:

  • The stock-to-flow model — Plan B’s specific quantitative framework, foundational for Stock-to-flow model.
  • Quantification of Ammous’s S2F framework — transformation of Ammous’s theoretical hardness concept into specific testable price predictions; the bridge between Austrian theory and quantitative price-modeling.
  • The pseudonymous-analyst tradition — Plan B’s career as a pseudonymous public figure illustrates Bitcoin’s structural openness to such voices.
  • The S2F controversy — Plan B sits at the center of one of Bitcoin’s most consequential price-modeling disputes; substantive critique engagement lives in the Counter-arguments section of Stock-to-flow model.
  • The contested framework as case study — the model’s empirical performance illustrates broader questions about Bitcoin price-modeling validity.

The Power Law framework (Santostasi, Perrenod) is treated as the more credible long-term modeling approach given its better post-2021 empirical performance; Plan B is presented honestly with both substantial influence and empirical problems.

Biographical sketch (pseudonymous-figure adaptation)

Plan B is pseudonymous. Like Satoshi Nakamoto’s thinker page, the biographical-sketch section here adapts to acknowledge what is known and unknown about Plan B publicly.

Public emergence (2019)

In March 2019, Plan B published the foundational essay “Modeling Bitcoin’s Value with Scarcity” on Medium. The essay:

  • Introduced the stock-to-flow model for Bitcoin
  • Provided specific mathematical formulation and historical fits
  • Drew explicitly on Saifedean Ammous’s S2F framework from The Bitcoin Standard
  • Made specific predictions about Bitcoin’s future price trajectory
  • Was widely shared and discussed across the Bitcoin community

The publication established Plan B as a major Bitcoin analytical voice almost immediately. The model’s apparent empirical fit to historical Bitcoin price (the chart of historical S2F vs. actual price showed remarkable apparent correlation) made it widely embraced.

Active period (2019-2021)

Through 2019-2021, Plan B was substantially active:

  • Maintained @100trillionUSD Twitter account with regular S2F updates
  • Refined the S2F model through additional analyses (S2FX cross-asset model in 2020)
  • Made specific price predictions including the well-known $100K+ Bitcoin by end-2021
  • Engaged with critics (though sometimes contentiously)
  • Became one of the most-cited Bitcoin price modelers in mainstream discourse

The 2020-2021 period was Plan B’s peak influence. Bitcoin’s bull market trajectory tracked reasonably well with S2F predictions through much of this period, validating the model in the eyes of many adherents.

The 2021-2022 divergence

In late 2021 and through 2022, the S2F model substantially diverged from actual Bitcoin price:

  • The model predicted continued strong appreciation post-November 2021 peak
  • Actual price declined substantially (from approximately 15.5K)
  • The “Floor Model” Plan B had developed predicted floor levels actual price broke below
  • Specific cycle predictions did not materialize

The divergence was substantial and sustained. By mid-2022, the S2F model was clearly producing predictions substantially different from actual market behavior.

The post-divergence period (2022+)

Plan B’s response to the divergence has been complex:

  • Initial defense of the model’s medium-term framework
  • Various refinements to specific predictions
  • Continued public engagement including controversial price-prediction extensions
  • Acknowledgment in some forums that specific short-term predictions had been wrong
  • Maintained position that long-term S2F framework remains valid

The mainstream Bitcoin analytical community has largely moved away from S2F as primary framework. Power Law (Santostasi, Perrenod) and on-chain frameworks (Check, Ryan) have substantially displaced S2F in serious analyst discourse.

Identity questions

Plan B’s identity has been speculated about extensively. Key facts:

  • Self-identified as Dutch institutional investor with substantial finance industry background
  • Maintains pseudonymity despite substantial public profile
  • Has acknowledged specific personal-life details (family, career background) without revealing identity
  • No definitive identification has been established

The pseudonymity has been a deliberate choice. Plan B has stated that the anonymity allows him to engage Bitcoin analysis without professional compromise from his finance industry positioning.

The pseudonymity is part of the story. Plan B’s specific identity is unknown but his work is substantial enough that the pseudonymity doesn’t prevent serious engagement.

Current activity

As of 2026, Plan B’s activity includes:

  • Continued Twitter presence (@100trillionUSD) — substantial following despite controversy
  • Ongoing S2F model updates — though with reduced influence vs. peak
  • Substack and blog content — various ongoing analytical writing
  • Conference and podcast appearances — frequent guest at Bitcoin events
  • Engagement with critics — sometimes substantive, sometimes contentious

Plan B remains a recognizable Bitcoin community figure but has substantially less analytical influence than during 2020-2021 peak. The S2F model’s empirical problems have shaped his subsequent reception.

Major works

”Modeling Bitcoin’s Value with Scarcity” (March 2019)

Plan B’s foundational essay introducing the stock-to-flow model. Published on Medium and subsequently widely cited.

The model:

  • Stock = existing Bitcoin supply (~21 million ultimate, less for circulating)
  • Flow = annual new Bitcoin production (block rewards × 365 × 144 blocks/day approximately)
  • Stock-to-Flow = stock divided by flow; measure of “hardness”
  • Mathematical fit: log-linear regression of historical price against S2F values
  • Predictions: substantial future price increases as halvings increase S2F

Key features of the original essay:

  • Apparent empirical fit — historical chart showed striking correlation
  • Cross-asset validation — gold and silver also fit on similar curve
  • Specific quantitative predictions — 100K Bitcoin by end of 2021
  • Theoretical framing — grounded in Ammous’s S2F framework
  • Accessible mathematics — basic regression analysis presentable to general audiences

The essay was widely embraced. It provided the kind of specific quantitative framework that many Bitcoin participants wanted, with apparent empirical validation that made it credible.

This essay is foundational for understanding the S2F controversy. Citations to “stock-to-flow Bitcoin model” generally refer to this specific framework.

S2FX (Stock-to-Flow Cross-Asset Model) (2020)

Plan B’s extension of the S2F model to cross-asset comparison. The framework:

  • Treats different asset classes (silver, gold, Bitcoin) as having different “phases”
  • Identifies phase transitions as Bitcoin matures
  • Predicts specific Bitcoin price levels based on phase transitions
  • Made specific 2020-2024 predictions including very high price targets

The S2FX model has fared even worse empirically than the basic S2F model. Specific predictions did not materialize in the timelines suggested.

S2FX is part of the broader stock-to-flow framework discussion. Citations to specific cross-asset claims should reference this specific extension.

”Bitcoin Stock-to-Flow Cross Asset Model” (April 2020)

The formal paper presenting the S2FX framework. Provides:

  • Specific mathematical formulation
  • Cross-asset historical data analysis
  • Phase-transition framework
  • Specific Bitcoin predictions

This is the most technically rigorous version of Plan B’s framework. Citations to S2FX specifics should reference this paper.

Twitter @100trillionUSD

Plan B’s primary venue throughout his Bitcoin career. The account has been:

  • Substantial following — among the most-followed Bitcoin analyst accounts at peak
  • Regular S2F updates — periodic predictions and model assessments
  • Engagement with critics — varying levels of substance
  • Mix of analytical content and broader Bitcoin commentary

The Twitter archive provides primary source for Plan B’s ongoing positions and specific predictions.

Various Bitcoin Magazine articles, podcast appearances, conference talks

Plan B has appeared substantially in Bitcoin media:

  • Bitcoin Magazine articles
  • Various podcast appearances — Stephan Livera Podcast, Pomp Podcast, others
  • Conference talks at Bitcoin Miami and similar venues
  • Various YouTube appearances

The accumulated body of content provides substantial primary source for his frameworks and predictions.

Plan B’s distinctive contributions

The stock-to-flow quantitative framework

Plan B’s most consequential contribution is the quantification of Ammous’s S2F framework into specific price predictions. The framework:

  • Specific mathematical relationship between S2F and price
  • Quantitative predictions with specific timelines
  • Apparent empirical validation from historical fit
  • Cross-asset framework extending the analysis

Whatever the empirical problems, the quantitative framework was a substantial contribution. It transformed Ammous’s qualitative S2F discussion into specific testable predictions.

The transformation has had mixed consequences:

  • Productive: Made specific predictions that could be tested empirically
  • Problematic: Specific predictions have been substantially falsified
  • Productive: Spurred broader Bitcoin price-modeling discourse
  • Problematic: Specific framework’s apparent validation may have misled many investors

This contribution is foundational for understanding both the S2F framework and its critiques.

The high-profile public-prediction stance

Plan B has been notable for making specific, public, falsifiable predictions. Unlike many Bitcoin analysts who hedge with broad ranges and conditional claims, Plan B made specific commitments:

  • 100K Bitcoin by end of 2021 — partially met (peak was ~$69K)
  • Floor predictions that have been broken
  • Long-term predictions of $1M+ Bitcoin by various dates
  • Specific cycle-position claims

The specific-prediction stance is intellectually honest in some respects (predictions can be tested) but problematic when the predictions are wrong (the framework loses credibility).

This is the case study in falsifiable Bitcoin prediction. The specific predictions have been tested by reality; many have failed.

The pseudonymous-public-figure framework

Plan B’s career as pseudonymous public figure has demonstrated specific Bitcoin community openness:

  • Public profile despite anonymity
  • Substantial influence without identity verification
  • Engagement with serious institutions including financial industry
  • Persistent identity maintained across years and contexts

The pseudonymity is Bitcoin-culturally distinctive. Mainstream financial analysts cannot maintain anonymous public profiles; Bitcoin’s pseudonymity culture (Satoshi himself, various other pseudonymous voices) enables this.

The pseudonymous-public-figure framework is part of Bitcoin culture more broadly.

The contested-framework case study

Plan B’s specific framework has become one of the most-studied cases of Bitcoin price-prediction modeling. The case illustrates:

  • How empirical apparent validation can be misleading
  • How specific predictions can be tested against subsequent data
  • How frameworks that seem validated can be substantially falsified
  • How community discourse processes model failures

The case study is valuable. Understanding the S2F controversy provides framework for evaluating other Bitcoin price models.

Plan B’s intellectual style

Several features make Plan B’s contributions distinctive:

Quantitative and specific

Plan B’s style is consistently quantitative and specific:

  • Specific predictions with timelines
  • Mathematical formulations in writing
  • Charts and visualizations prominently featured
  • Statistical analysis of historical fits

This quantitative specificity is unusual in Bitcoin discourse. Many Bitcoin commentators avoid specific predictions; Plan B has consistently made them.

Confident, sometimes contentious

Plan B has been notably confident in his framework, sometimes to the point of contentiousness with critics:

  • Strong defense of S2F positions even as evidence mounted against
  • Direct engagement with critics, sometimes harshly
  • Sustained position through significant empirical pressure
  • Limited acknowledgment of major errors

This style has costs (alienates careful critics; reduces willingness to update) and benefits (provides clear position; resists rhetorical hedging).

The confident style should be noted. Plan B’s positions should be engaged on their merits regardless of his confidence in them.

Engagement with mainstream finance frameworks

Plan B has positioned himself within mainstream finance analytical frameworks:

  • Quantitative regression analysis familiar to finance professionals
  • Specific institutional finance experience (claimed in biography)
  • Engagement with financial media beyond Bitcoin-specific venues
  • Cross-asset framework familiar to traditional finance

This positioning has produced some mainstream finance reception but also exposes the framework to mainstream finance critiques.

Pseudonymous public engagement

Plan B’s pseudonymity shapes his engagement:

  • Limited personal-identity scrutiny that public figures face
  • Persistent identity maintained through controversy
  • Direct public engagement despite anonymity
  • Mixed reception depending on whether anonymity is seen as feature or bug

The pseudonymity is part of his work’s character.

Limited updates after empirical problems

A genuine criticism: Plan B has updated his framework less substantially than the empirical record might warrant. The pattern:

  • Specific predictions that didn’t materialize have been partially defended
  • Major framework revisions have been resisted
  • Continued advocacy for S2F framework despite substantial criticism
  • Limited acknowledgment that the core model may be wrong

This limited-update style is the substantial criticism of Plan B from Santostasi and other serious analysts. The framework arguably should have been substantially revised given the evidence.

Plan B and the Bitcoin price-modeling tradition

What Plan B inherits

  • Saifedean Ammous’s S2F framework — qualitatively
  • Mainstream finance quantitative-analysis traditions — regression, statistical fitting
  • Cross-asset analytical frameworks — from broader finance literature
  • Bitcoin community modeling traditions — earlier attempts at Bitcoin price models

What Plan B adds

  • Quantification of S2F into specific predictions
  • Cross-asset extension (S2FX) of the basic model
  • High-profile public-prediction practice as model for engagement
  • The pseudonymous-public-analyst persona
  • The specific S2F price target framework that became widely cited

What Plan B doesn’t adequately address

  • Empirical problems with specific predictions after 2021
  • Theoretical critiques of the S2F framework
  • Alternative frameworks (Power Law specifically)
  • Substantial framework revision that the evidence may warrant
  • Mainstream economic critiques of using S2F as price predictor

Where Plan B fits in the broader Bitcoin discourse

The contested figure in Bitcoin price-modeling discourse. Within the modeling tradition:

  • Power Law framework: Santostasi (primary), Perrenod (adjacent) — user’s preferred framework
  • Stock-to-flow framework: Plan B (primary) — substantially contested
  • On-chain framework: Check, Ryan, others
  • Mainstream finance frameworks: various analysts

Power Law is treated as the more credible long-term modeling framework. Plan B is included as the major figure on the contested side of the dispute, with honest engagement of both his contributions and the empirical problems.

For a reader engaging Plan B:

  1. “Modeling Bitcoin’s Value with Scarcity” (March 2019) — start with the foundational essay
  2. Subsequent Twitter and Substack content — for ongoing positions
  3. Santostasi’s critique materials — for the analytical counter-position
  4. Various Bitcoin Magazine articles — for context

Pair Plan B with Giovanni Santostasi (primary Power Law alternative), Stephen Perrenod (adjacent Power Law voice), and James Check (on-chain analysis at different scale) for the full price-modeling context.

See: Giovanni Santostasi, Stephen Perrenod, James Check.

Counter-arguments and tensions

A serious thinker page engages the genuine debates. The critiques of Plan B are substantial and well-developed.

The post-2021 empirical failure

The most consequential critique is that Plan B’s specific predictions substantially failed post-2021:

  • Floor model predictions were broken substantially
  • Cycle-extension predictions did not materialize
  • Long-term trajectory predictions are increasingly difficult to defend given subsequent evidence
  • Specific timeline predictions were substantially missed

The empirical failure is the central problem. Defenders argue:

  • Long-term framework remains theoretically valid
  • Specific timing may have been wrong while structural relationship continues
  • Macroeconomic shocks disrupted expected trajectory
  • The framework can be refined without abandoning core

Critics (including Santostasi) argue:

  • The empirical failure is fundamental, not timing
  • The theoretical framework has specific problems (treated below)
  • Alternative frameworks (Power Law) have tracked actual price substantially better
  • The framework should be substantially revised or abandoned

The empirical failure is the substantial concern. Plan B’s framework should be presented honestly — historically influential but substantially problematic post-2021.

The theoretical critique (per Santostasi and others)

Beyond empirical failure, the S2F framework has theoretical problems:

  • Causal mechanism unclear — why should stock-to-flow specifically determine price?
  • Cross-asset comparison problems — different assets have different specific dynamics
  • The regression fit may be spurious — limited data points, specific dummy variable structure
  • Bitcoin’s specific dynamics may not match the simple S2F mechanism
  • The framework predicts what would be impossible at very high adoption levels

These theoretical critiques have substantial analytical force. They suggest the framework’s apparent empirical validation was partially spurious even before the post-2021 divergence.

The theoretical critiques are part of why Power Law has substantially displaced S2F in serious analyst discourse.

The pseudonymity question

Plan B’s pseudonymity has been variously interpreted:

Positive interpretation:

  • Enables Bitcoin analysis without professional compromise
  • Aligns with Bitcoin’s broader pseudonymity culture
  • Allows engagement without personal-identity scrutiny
  • Has been sustained consistently

Skeptical interpretation:

  • Reduces accountability for specific predictions
  • Makes verification of claimed credentials impossible
  • Allows continued advocacy without personal reputation cost
  • Could mask conflicts of interest

The dispute is unresolved. The pseudonymity is part of the framework’s character — neither dispositive in favor nor against the substantive analysis.

Limited engagement with critics

Plan B’s engagement with serious critics (Santostasi particularly) has been variable:

  • Some substantive engagement with specific points
  • Some dismissive responses to broader critiques
  • Less substantial revision than evidence may warrant
  • Sustained advocacy for original framework despite mounting criticism

This limited-engagement pattern has costs. The framework’s continued advocacy without substantial revision suggests resistance to evidence rather than honest analytical update.

The “Floor Model” specifically

A particularly criticized variant of Plan B’s work has been the “Floor Model” — specific minimum-price predictions that were prominently broken:

  • Specific floor levels that actual price went well below
  • Defended as floor even as price broke through
  • Subsequently revised without full acknowledgment of failure

The Floor Model is widely considered substantially falsified. This is one of the most clear-cut cases of S2F-framework empirical failure.

Confidence vs evidence asymmetry

A general critique: Plan B’s confidence has been substantially higher than the evidence has warranted:

  • Strong specific predictions with limited acknowledgment of uncertainty
  • Confident defense in the face of mounting criticism
  • Limited hedging in original framework
  • Sustained position despite predictive failures

This confidence-evidence asymmetry has been costly for the framework’s credibility. This is part of why subsequent analyst voices (Santostasi, Check, etc.) have substantially displaced Plan B’s influence.

The bigger picture: what S2F got wrong

A constructive critique: S2F’s specific failures illustrate broader points about Bitcoin price modeling:

  • Apparent empirical fits can be spurious
  • Specific predictions need to be tested against multiple cycles
  • Cross-asset comparisons have specific limitations
  • Framework revisions should follow evidence rather than resist it

These lessons are valuable for the broader Bitcoin analytical community. Plan B’s S2F serves as case study in what to be careful about in Bitcoin price modeling.

Where to read Plan B

Essential primary readings

  • “Modeling Bitcoin’s Value with Scarcity” (March 2019) — foundational S2F essay
  • “Bitcoin Stock-to-Flow Cross Asset Model” (April 2020) — S2FX framework paper
  • Various Twitter threads updating the framework
  • Substack content at various venues

Subsequent essays and analyses

Plan B has continued producing content on:

  • S2F model updates — refined predictions
  • Engagement with critics — particularly Santostasi
  • Cycle analysis using S2F framework
  • Broader Bitcoin commentary

Twitter and social

  • @100trillionUSD on X/Twitter — primary venue; substantial archive of positions and predictions

Podcast appearances

Frequent guest on:

  • Stephan Livera Podcast
  • Pomp Podcast (Anthony Pompliano)
  • Various other Bitcoin podcasts

Critical engagement

For evaluating Plan B’s framework, paired reading with:

  • Giovanni Santostasi’s Substack and Twitter — substantial critique
  • Stephen Perrenod’s work — adjacent power-law alternative
  • Various other analysts who have engaged the S2F controversy

Secondary works

  • Various Bitcoin Magazine coverage of the S2F controversy
  • Academic analyses of cryptocurrency price modeling
  • Various critical commentaries in Bitcoin analyst community

Where Plan B fits in the broader Bitcoin discourse

The major contested figure in Bitcoin price-modeling discourse. Specifically valuable for:

  • Understanding the S2F framework that has been historically influential
  • Case study in price-prediction modeling problems
  • The pseudonymous-analyst tradition in Bitcoin culture
  • The post-2021 empirical-failure pattern as illustrative
  • The Power-Law-vs-S2F dispute as context for preferring Power Law

Recommended Plan B engagement:

  1. Original 2019 essay — for the foundational framework
  2. Santostasi’s critique materials — for the analytical counter-position
  3. Selected subsequent content — for understanding the dispute
  4. Twitter for ongoing positions — with appropriate skepticism

Pair Plan B with Giovanni Santostasi (primary Power Law alternative — substantially better empirical track record), Stephen Perrenod (adjacent Power Law voice), and James Check (on-chain analysis at different scale) for the full price-modeling context.

Power Law has substantially displaced S2F as the contemporary-consensus long-term modeling framework. The page presents Plan B’s framework honestly while acknowledging the substantial empirical problems that justify that consensus shift. Citations to S2F specifically should reference Plan B; citations to long-term Bitcoin price expectations should typically reference Power Law (Santostasi/Perrenod) instead.

See: Giovanni Santostasi, Stephen Perrenod, James Check.

Open questions

Questions worth tracking:

  • Will the S2F framework be substantially revised or definitively retired? Plan B has resisted major revision; the evidence may eventually force the question.
  • Will Plan B’s identity ever be revealed? The pseudonymity has been sustained; whether it persists depends on his choices.
  • Has the S2F framework had irreparable damage to its credibility, or could specific refinements restore its analytical standing?
  • The Power-Law-vs-S2F dispute has been substantial. As more data accumulates, will the analytical community converge, or will the dispute persist?
  • Plan B’s case illustrates broader questions about Bitcoin price-modeling. What lessons should the analytical community draw for future modeling efforts?
  • The pseudonymous-analyst tradition Plan B represents has costs and benefits. How will Bitcoin community evolve in handling pseudonymous public figures?

Graph View

Backlinks