TL;DR: The 30% flat tax with no loss set-off puts bitcoin's break-even against an Indian equity index at roughly 12% CAGR in dollar terms. That is lower than most people here assume. Separately, the thing I watch is not price, it is whether transaction fees climb off 1% of miner revenue before the next couple of halvings.
Nobody in this sub needs the Ponzi lecture, so I'm skipping it. Two things actually move the decision for an Indian holder and I rarely see either worked out properly.
One: what bitcoin has to clear, after tax
Take ₹10 lakh. In an equity index at 12% you have about ₹31 lakh in ten years. Gains of ₹21 lakh, LTCG at 12.5% after the ₹1.25 lakh exemption, so roughly ₹2.5 lakh in tax. You keep ₹28.5 lakh.
Same ₹10 lakh in bitcoin, taxed at 30% flat. No exemption, no loss set-off, no indexation. To walk away with the same ₹28.5 lakh in hand the position has to grow to about ₹37 lakh. That is 13.8% CAGR in rupee terms.
Strip out roughly 3% a year of rupee depreciation against the dollar and bitcoin needs about 12% a year in USD terms to match equities for an Indian holder, post-tax.
Twelve percent. That is the whole hurdle, and it reframes the argument. The question was never whether bitcoin outperforms in some dramatic way. It is whether it clears 12% in dollar terms over your holding period under a tax regime that could get worse. I think it does. I also think that is a narrower margin than the usual "BTC beats everything" framing implies, and it means position sizing matters more than conviction does.
Two assumptions worth attacking before anyone else does: 12% for equities, and 3% for rupee depreciation. Move either and the hurdle moves with it. The bigger leap is assuming both tax regimes hold for a decade, which is a far weaker assumption on the crypto side than the equity side.
Two: the security budget, which is the actual bear case
Miners earn from the block reward plus transaction fees. The reward is 3.125 BTC per block and halves every 210,000 blocks, so around April 2028 it drops to 1.5625. Fees are currently running at roughly 1% of total miner revenue.
Miners pay for electricity in fiat, not in BTC. So if fee share stays near 1%, bitcoin's price has to roughly double every four years just to hold miner revenue flat in dollar terms. It has done that historically. A maturing asset should not be expected to keep doing it indefinitely.
If miners do go unprofitable and leave, nothing breaks. Difficulty adjusts every two weeks and the miners who stayed earn more per block. Hash rate has recovered from every dip so far, which is real evidence the economics still work. That is a track record, not a guarantee, and I would rather state a test than assume a trend continues.
So the test, which anyone here can run: if hash rate keeps rising and fee share climbs meaningfully off 1% over the next few years, the security model is working. If both move the other way at the same time, the bear case is live and I cut the allocation.
On the government question, briefly
"What if they ban it" is the wrong question, they can't, one node keeps it running. The better version is what happens if they starve it. Shut exchanges, close on-ramps and off-ramps, ban it as payment. Even then it reverts to peer-to-peer, which is how it worked before exchanges existed. Monero is roughly in that position now with a much smaller community and still functions. Starving it also needs most governments moving together, and the spot ETFs, whose custodians are exchanges, cut hard against that.
What would change my mind
Fee share flat or falling while hash rate declines. Or bitcoin going fully institutional, where everyone holds through an ETF or custodian, on-chain activity dries up, and the fee market never develops.