I wonder if you're considering the value of a currency where the monetary policy cannot by altered by any one group or confederation? Governments around the world have committed to synchronized money printing which is moving us toward MMT. This being the idea that debt and sovereign deficits do not matter due to the government's ability to just print more money. See Japan. Regardless of how you feel about this schemes chances of succeeding I don't think its unreasonable to expect that some percentage of people will be skeptical.
Now you take that percentage of people and you ask them "How will you preserve the value of your wealth in this environment?". Many will answer with the OG response, gold. However Bitcoin is objectively better than gold for EVERY single role it plays besides
a) jewelry + manufacturing uses
b) history as a store of value. Historical trust
We can argue about gold vs Bitcoin but I'm happy to concede that gold is better in some ways. However do you think that as a group, Millennials and Zoomers are going to choose to buy pretty rocks that needs to be held by a custodian as a "trusted" third party and can't be easily/safely moved, or a digital asset that they can control that functions natively on the internet, where they spend almost all of their
time?
Bitcoin is also highly divisible (0.00000001 BTC), portable, nearly instant transmissions, durable, can't be affordably counterfeited while gold
can. Bitcoin is literally better gold.
Gold's current market cap is approximately
$10.9 trillion
Bitcoin's current market cap is
$253 billion
That means bitcoin is ~2% of gold's marketcap. If you don't think that Bitcoin is going to close that gap by more than another 2% I'd say you're not paying attention to the macro economic environment that we're entering.
The pro Bitcoin argument is no longer about technology or the future, its about the realities of the world economy and where people can and will store their wealth to avoid what appears to be a world-wide recession incoming. I would suggest reading the Winklevoss capital article I posted a page or so back if you haven't already. They do a good job of going over the economic argument for $500k Bitcoin which is quite conservative honestly.
There are more arguments to be had on this topic. I think the old narrative of Bitcoin as a currency is actually premature. It will act as a store of value before it actually has use as a currency.
Gresham's law states that people spend their less valuable money before their more valuable money. A money with a limited supply and hard coded monetary policy will simply be worth more over time than one that can be printed at will. It will be hoarded in the near-term.
This all completely ignores the value being created on Ethereum and with other alt-coins that will bring more money into Bitcoin simply by bringing more people into the crypto ecosystem. Remember, people thought the internet was overrated when it first came out too.