The article mentions USDT (the stable non-local fiat) though, not Bitcoin. The article doesn't say whether people are interested in BTC for anything but mining.

I am aware. I was responding to the comment emphasizing how using BTC (via mining or not) to get USDT is a known/anticipated use of Bitcoin and highlights Bitcoin performing at least one of money’s functions.

The "irony" mentioned is that it isn't serving any of its myriad purported goals: it isn't a functional store of value and it isn't itself a mechanism of exchange or liquidity. Extralegality is merely a circumstantial property.

Bitcoin is a tool that can be used to enable something. If I want to get value out of a hammer, I don't care whether that value comes from me using it directly or indirectly, and I don't care whether the useful properties of my hammer are intentionally designed or are circumstantial.