When and how that transition happens is subject to a number of complex factors, and it's not even necessarily the case that incremental drops in the stock will produce incremental gains for your put option.
"IV crush" is an especially strange objection in this context. IV crush matters when you buy options at elevated implied volatility and that volatility collapses. If Micron suddenly drops hundreds of dollars because the alleged bubble is bursting then the implied volatility would sharply rise, which makes your put more valuable, not less. Invoking "IV crush" here mostly makes it sound like you've heard the terminology without thinking through how it actually applies to the scenario you're describing.
If you genuinely think Micron is going to collapse sometime over the next two or three years because this entire RAM shortage is an overhyped bubble, then the obvious trade is to buy puts around where you think the stock should return to once that bubble disappears. Micron wasn't remotely a $1000 stock before this run. We can be generous and use a $300 strike since even though that's still 100% higher than Micron's price prior to this run-up, it gets the point across.
A long dated $300 put is currently around $7 per share, so one contract costs roughly $700. If Micron eventually falls to $200, that contract is worth $10000 at expiry. At $100, it's worth $20000. If the crash happens well before expiry, it can be worth even more than its intrinsic value because there's still time value left.
If you're claiming to be certain that a gigantic bubble is going to burst and wipe hundreds of dollars off the stock price, there are long-dated, far-out-of-the-money puts specifically capable of expressing that view. Pointing at an expensive $1000 strike put and saying "look, options are complicated" is not a counter-argument. It's just a weird or rather superficial misunderstanding of some financial concepts.