Many of the current crop "populists" don't really have a program that would actually help the people whose support they've gained through emotional appeals. They're mainly just trying to harness dissatisfaction with the current order to fuel personal ambition.
IIRC, the original populists actually opposed the gold standard, when it was still actually a thing, and supported silver because it was more inflationary. They understood deflationary money helps the people who already have money, and inflationary money helps the people who are in debt to them.
It's not a currency, that's a misnomer to a great degree.
Which nations are supporting it as a currency? Essentially none. If something doesn't have the currency status backing of a single major economy, it plainly can't be considered a currency. It's a store of value.
Sure, we could be pretend about it (any medium of exchange), be idealistic, and say that you don't need nations to back something for it to be considered a currency, however that's repudiated by every possible aspect of how things actually work (and will continue to) both locally within an economy and internationally in trade.
Gold also is not a currency today, it's a store of value. I don't think anyone confuses gold for being a currency and there's no reason to confuse Bitcoin as being such.
I agree with you. The comment was made within the context of (a) Visa treating it like a currency and (b) OP referencing the original dream of Bitcoin supporting a decentralized financial system.
It's a deflationary currency. If it has a future as a store of value, and I think it very well may, it would have a net effect of concentrating wealth. And with wealth comes power. Whether that power is exercised through how the blockchain processes transactions or via some other vector seems something of a side show to me.
The wealthy never wanted to abandon the gold standard. It was the populists and the bankers. The poor and the middlemen.