The long-running debate over a $1 price target for Shiba Inu has resurfaced after analyst TXMC argued that such a move would require SHIB’s market capitalization to rise beyond the entire global supply of US dollars. That claim spread quickly across crypto circles and pushed a familiar meme-coin narrative back into focus.
Shiba Inu, launched on Ethereum, has long been defined by community momentum, social media attention, and bursts of speculative demand. It has posted sharp rallies before, but TXMC’s point shifted the conversation away from hype and toward basic market-cap math. In that framing, the $1 target looks far removed from realistic valuation constraints.
TXMC shifts the discussion to valuation math
TXMC’s argument was simple: if SHIB were to trade at $1, the project’s total valuation would have to surpass the amount of dollars available globally. The source material did not provide a deeper line-by-line calculation, yet the conclusion alone was enough to reignite criticism of exaggerated price targets. In meme-coin markets, headline prices often travel faster than supply-adjusted valuation analysis. This time, the gap between those two ideas became the story.
Michael Gayed then responded with blunt and sarcastic language. The reaction drew pushback, but it was consistent with his older views on speculative assets. His comments did not introduce a new thesis so much as restate one: assets like SHIB, in his view, do not have the fundamentals needed to justify extreme upside narratives.
Gayed ties the crypto decline to a liquidity squeeze
Earlier in June, Gayed described the crypto-market downturn as the “second phase” of a global liquidity squeeze. He said the decline in digital assets was tied directly to the unwinding of carry trades. In that setup, investors borrow in a low-interest currency and move capital into higher-yielding assets; once liquidity tightens, those positions are closed and selling pressure hits risk markets.
His broader macro view is that central banks pulling back cheap liquidity forces large investors to cut exposure to the most speculative trades first. Bond markets felt that pressure earlier, he argued, and cryptocurrencies are now going through a similar correction. Equities, in his framework, could face the same pattern later.
His criticism extends beyond meme coins to Bitcoin
Gayed’s skepticism is not limited to SHIB. He has also argued that Bitcoin has failed to prove itself as a defensive asset. In his assessment, BTC is not a reliable safe haven but a speculative vehicle supported by a powerful narrative. That stands in clear contrast to market participants who continue to frame Bitcoin as a form of digital gold.
The article also noted that in the second half of June 2026, SHIB remained under pressure during a broader market downturn and traded at levels with five zeros after the decimal. That weakness revived concerns about how quickly assets with limited fundamental support can lose value when speculative capital stops flowing in. The renewed $1 debate around SHIB is now less about slogans and more about supply, liquidity, and the hard limits imposed by market capitalization.