Some solid food for thought on “money”

Bitcoin can be considered money in a broad economic sense, but it falls short of fully qualifying as money according to standard definitions used by most economists. Money traditionally serves three key functions:
• Medium of exchange — widely accepted for goods and services.
• Store of value — reliably holds purchasing power over time.
• Unit of account — provides a stable measure for pricing and accounting.
Bitcoin performs some of these roles partially but not consistently or broadly enough to be classified as mature money.
Arguments in Favor of Bitcoin as Money
• Medium of exchange: Bitcoin enables peer-to-peer digital transfers without intermediaries, operating 24/7 globally with low fees in many cases (e.g., via Lightning Network). It is accepted by growing numbers of merchants, and in limited contexts (like El Salvador), it functions for daily transactions.
• Store of value: Its fixed supply of 21 million coins creates scarcity, similar to gold, positioning it as “digital gold” or “sound money” resistant to inflation. Proponents argue it hedges against fiat currency devaluation, especially in unstable economies.
• Decentralization and utility: Unlike fiat money, it isn’t controlled by governments or banks, allowing borderless, censorship-resistant transfers. Some view it as evolving money for the digital age.
Arguments Against Bitcoin as Money
• Volatility → Extreme price swings (e.g., rapid rises and crashes) make it unreliable as a store of value or unit of account. Pricing goods in Bitcoin is impractical, as its value can change dramatically day-to-day.
• Limited adoption as medium of exchange → Most holders treat it as a speculative asset rather than for payments. Transactions can be slow and costly on the main network, and it’s rarely used for everyday purchases outside niche cases.
• Not widely accepted → Even in countries experimenting with it, cash or stable fiat dominates. Economists like Joseph Stiglitz, Nouriel Roubini, and others have called it a speculative bubble or fraud, lacking intrinsic value beyond speculation.
• Economic theory → It doesn’t fit models requiring stable velocity or broad acceptance. Post-Keynesian views emphasize money as debt-based, which Bitcoin isn’t.
Legal and Practical Status (as of 2026)
• Bitcoin is not legal tender in most countries (must be accepted by law for debts). Only El Salvador maintains it as legal tender (though adoption is low and mandatory acceptance was rolled back). The Central African Republic previously adopted it but reversed course.
• In major economies (e.g., US, EU), it’s treated as property or a commodity for tax purposes, not currency. It’s legal to own and trade but not official money.
• Globally, it’s a digital asset with value derived from market demand, scarcity, and network effects—more like a commodity (gold-like) than fiat money.

In summary, Bitcoin functions as a form of digital money in specific use cases and is often called “money” by enthusiasts, but mainstream economists and regulators do not consider it true money due to its volatility, limited transactional use, and speculative nature. It excels more as an investment asset or store of value for some than as everyday currency.

I get it playing a bit of devils advocate. It hasn’t stored value as well over my 5 years in the space. Feel like we are stumbling with adoption. Take usage on stacker news. We are way down from a few years ago. Why? What flips it back? What can we do?