I think it's fair to blame the marketing mistake. Bitcoin was built for the purpose of making convenient payments. However, it turned out to be an ingenious alternative to gold.
I wish it were labelled cryptoasset instead of cryptocurrency.
In the long-term, the objective nature of Bitcoin should prevail and we'll assess its benefit by whether it is a successful store of value.
I haven't heard the tagline "Bitcoin - it's cheaper than moving around gold on warships" yet. So far, Bitcoin has always been advertised as a new form of internet payment and a new decentralised currently for everyday use.
It's also the very point of cryptocurrencies that there are no intermediate agents, like central banks that could make up the lower levels of your stack.
So the usage patterns that Bitcoin was marketed with absolutely put it in competition with visa transactions.