Bitcoin as an electronic cash system is something novel. A settlement system isn't.
Bitcoin as a shared worldwide electronic cash system is something novel.
A "settlement system" where existing financial institutions extract value through high fees, isn't. Such a settlement system has to compete with what already exists - the infrastructure in the hands of central bankers.
When powerful interests in Bitcoin suggested that it should be thought of as "digital gold" or a settlement system instead of directly a day-to-day medium of exchange, they were - knowingly or unknowingly - acting in the interests of the status quo and against the interests of Bitcoin ultimately appreciating and being useful to the most people (like a successful global currency would).
Without this appreciation through being useful and thus gaining mass adoption, Bitcoin's "halving" mechanism could be turned into a timebomb that will destroy the network's security in the coming decades, which would put a total end to the "store of value" narrative.
TL;DR there are only 2 scenarios for Bitcoin (unless changes are made which entirely change its character and consensus rules):
Success through adoption as a global p2p cash system
Failure, loss of value relative to fiat currency, and disappearing into the footnotes of history
[link] [comments]