Ragnarly took this down at some point (and moved onto other things). It's a lot of word play, but it's not futile even if I find the reasoning and conclusion odd.
He concludes that bitcoin isn't hard money because it doesn't fit Adam Hayes' definition of hard money. What's weird is he then calls bitcoin "metallic":
In summary, Bitcoin doesn't meet the definition of soft, hard, or sound money. Instead, Bitcoin qualifies as metallic money and peer-to-peer electronic cash. But Bitcoin is much more than both. Bitcoin meets the definition of cypherpunk money, though imperfectly.
I'm not sure calling bitcoin metallic or cypherpunk characterizes it better than hard, so maybe we should just say something more literal like "bitcoin is digital money with a fixed supply."