People actually use other currencies as a medium of exchange first, and store of value second (usually they purchase assets to store value long term).
Bitcoin is the other way round (at present at least).
BTC with its fixed supply works the opposite direction, devoid of inflation: you'd rather keep your BTC as a store of value that will increase, than spend it on goods you can still buy later for fewer BTC.
From a purely economic perspective, cash is just another liquid asset. The distance from currency to store of value is quite short.
Physical assets are generally regarded as stores of value, however, in modern times, currency stability has resulted in currency supplanting durable goods as the primary store of value.
Yes, you would. I'm not clear what you mean by it here:
If you mean Bitcoin, you're agreeing with my point, it's a good store of value first (modulo price volatility and external risks)
If you mean Fiat, don't do that long term, use assets.
And why would it matter what's the "intended" usage of it? Who determines intent? Might every holder of the asset/currency/property (whatever one calls it) have different intentions for it?
I wonder if much of the medium term success of Bitcoin has been because the money put in couldn't be laundered readily in any other way, so whilst Bitcoin is a relatively high risk the alternative was just to dump the money without a way to use it?