their premise on the utility of Bitcoin is flawed, for two reasons.

First, they have an unnecessary focus on whether Bitcoin has lived up to the goals of its creator and early adopters. I think this observation is unimportant, even if true. The focus should be on whether Bitcoin has utility for society today. Second, they fall into the common trap of treating Bitcoin as just an asset, one that is independent of the novel infrastructure that powers it.

Just because something isn’t used on a day-to-day basis doesn’t mean that it is not useful. Bitcoin is a type of monetary insurance. It offers protection from dilution, confiscation, and censorship.

Unlike any fiat currency, there is no risk of excess printing or borrowing by the sovereign in charge. This sort of hard money isn’t always desirable for everyday activity, and there are valid reasons why most economics moved away from the gold standard long ago. But hard money is highly desirable as a hedge.