Bitcoin is Schrödinger’s asset, in the sense that it is whatever it needs to be to counter the latest criticisms from non-believers.

For example, if you say that bitcoin has 7 tps and even with lightning will take decades to onboard everyone, it will become a store of value that you are supposed to buy and hold for long term. But if you point out how bitcoin has crazy volatility, it may become a currency that you don’t hold, just use to transact.

I am happy that you understood where I was going with this.

People whip up whatever they need it to be to make an argument. Sometimes we call it a currency because we can use it to buy things, other times its an investment. To reliably fit in either of those buckets is exclusive. To be a currency you need to be a store of value that is not fluctuation a lot, this means its a terrible investment vehicle.

You're right, bitcoin is something entirely new, and we don't know the future, so we don't know what it will end up being.

Entirely new is a stretch. And haven't we reached the end? It's not broadly useful nor sustainable nor trustworthy.

I’d argue it’s useful for many people who live in countries that suffer from hyperinflation.

I feel like an asset that doesn't rise or fall by a factor of 10 a year would be a lot more useful for that purpose. Even bartering levis blue jeans would offer more price stability than btc.

Blue jeans aren’t very salable in the sense that you have to find a blue jeans buyer in order to exchange them for something else.

Likewise for bitcoin. In either case the levis conversion rate is pretty stable unlike bitcoin. You can go on marketplaces like poshmark and others and readily buy and sell these jeans at prices that are both stable and widely agreed upon.

You're not one of the "it's not useful to me, so it's not useful to anybody" people, are you?

Entirely new? At this point it's getting a little long in the tooth, if anything

Bitcoin is almost 15 years old.

This is like calling the web “new” in 2005-2008 (depending on chosen start date).

The “new” excuses ran out a decade ago.

Bitcoin is a commoditized idea of sovereign value.

It can be seen as an investment by those who bet on a rise in demand for sovereign value, and can be seen as a currency by those who doubt the ability of fiat value to continue indefinitely.

I don't understand the importance of this distinction. People invest in currencies all the time.

I think its important because to be a good investment vehicle means it probably should not be considered a currency, to be a reliable currency means it should be a terrible investment vehicle. Sure, its possible to say it can be both but I think to be be reliable in either is exclusive.

And while there are indeed large currency markets, it is not very common on a population basis due to it being very much a speculators game requiring massive amounts of leverage for the average net worth.

When it goes from being worth less than a dollar to sixty thousand dollars in a few years, its an investment not much different than a limited baseball card.