Bitcoin allows anyone to store value in a decentralized global network. It also allows anyone, at any time, without any license or permission, to send value almost instantly across the globe to anyone else.
That in and of itself will always be valuable, and right now that value has a market cap of $1.3 trillion.
At its base utility, Bitcoin has no issuer, no counterpart risk, or intermediary, so it’s a public and secure network available to all and not controllable by any central government.
Its scarcity means that anyone in the world can own a small (or large) part of the network through fungible BTC tokens. That supply of tokens will never change, and as the demand for permissionless and borderless payments increases, so will the value of each token.
Bitcoin is a global payments network based on a digital asset that can store value with no hardware or cost is valuable, which is why it’s considered a digital commodity.
The fact that you glean no value from it is irrelevant.
Bitcoin is now the scaffolding for exchange traded funds from the world’s largest financial institutions, is considered legal tender by a small, yet growing number of nations, and is an accepted form of payment by tens of thousands of merchants in the US alone.
Your dismissal of Bitcoin seems to be based on the tautology that “as soon as people don’t value it, it loses value.” But that isn’t an argument.
An argument would be some specific piece of evidence that at some specific, future time frame or epoch, mankind will not value Bitcoin, or borderless payments, or digital assets. This is true for any commodity if there’s a sufficient replacement or a halt to the need for the utility it provides.
But there is no evidence of any such thing.
Bitcoin allows anyone to store value in a decentralized global network. It also allows anyone, at any time, without any license or permission, to send value almost instantly across the globe to anyone else.
It’s possible that the value of crypto is based on a paradigm I don’t fully understand yet. I give you that. But that is because, before Crypto, all forms of wealth were based on something phisical - of intrinsic value - until Nexon severed the tie between the dollar and gold. And then we had fiat currency, that at least was based on countries who, with military and legal power, had incentive to preserve their value - until it all will collapse eventually.
The problem is that from my perspective I still see Crypto as weaker than Fiat, which was the weakest form of currency until Crypto came along. I just have a hard time getting over that. Add to that the belief that scarcity is also simply contrived. i.e. old slot cars are also scarce. But they are also not in demand. so scarcity only matters when something is in demand. And with something where its only value is as an investment, and then only based on faith in its value, that demand could dry up quite literally in a single day - or hour. Then scarcity would be irrelevant. After all, if there are only 11 of a particular widget, but only 10 people actually want one, it’s not scarce.