"Can I use it when I need to?" is more important to what people consider money than "does it lose value sometimes?"

Gold isn't considered "money" anymore because people can't use it without great hassle.

People consider fiat paper notes to be "money" despite these papers losing appreciably in value over time (research 'inflation' if you don't believe).

As long as the loss of value happens slowly enough, people don't pay much attention to it and will still use it as money. This is proven out by everyday reality around us, and it also makes sense.

If you can get 99,96% of the previous day's value of your money in return for things you need to survive, you're going to take it rather than some asset that purports to hold value better but in fact loses you more value (whether through high network fees or exchange costs) when you trade it for more liquid goods and isn't much usable for your survival because it's not accepted as money in most places.

I'm making this post because I'm tired of the trope that BTC supposedly holding value better than other things somehow makes it a good money.

No, it would be good money if it were widely adopted in commerce, as an accepted currency.

Yet, for years prominent BTC'ers were arguing that it cannot fulfill this role, instead of working to make it so. They were in fact working on their own prophecy of Bitcoin not becoming a better form of money than existing ones.

It's high time to turn this around, but it's not going to be BTC that does it.