I would recommend Josh Hendrickson's working paper from earlier this year,

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4744828 (Short blog version here: https://www.economicforces.xyz/p/im-teaching-a-course-on-bitcoin-why).

In it, he explains that what mainstream economists SAY about bitcoin is not the same as what mainstream economics says. Lots of credible commitment, Kocherlakota record-keeping, savings vehicles across time (Thomson/Klein), and debunking bubble or Ponzi claims (since those require inside/private information whereas Bitcoin is fully transparent).

Nice extracts: "given the broad implications of mainstream monetary theory, this (long) discussion reveals that there is nothing about bitcoin that would obviously preclude it from serving as money"

"To my mind, all of these things make Bitcoin worthy of study. And yet, many of my colleagues in the economics profession seem to disagree. A number of prominent voices in the profession enjoy publicly denouncing bitcoin as some sort of scam or an example of a classic asset bubble (many of them don’t understand asset bubbles either, so they can be forgiven for the confusion). This attitude seems to have created a view within the Bitcoin community that mainstream economics cannot help you to understand bitcoin"