Actually, I felt your argument was not based on the academic definition of a currency, but rather on "a central bank said so in a Twitter thread". The argument

Actually, I felt your argument was not based on the academic definition of a currency, but rather on "a central bank said so in a Twitter thread". The arguments that people usually make about Bitcoin not fitting the legal definition of money are ill-conceived because they are semantic. Apparently, money is: a means of exchange, a store of wealth, a unit of account. It is clearly all of that to some people, so it undoubtedly fits the definition. But just because it fits into the academic definition of money, doesn't it can't be considered an asset. It fits the definition of an asset as well. Coincidentally, Wikipedia says about the term asset: "It covers money [...] belonging to a business or person". Of course, now we are talking about money, not currency? What's the difference between money and currency? These are all very interesting questions for linguists. But if you want to have an actual argument about something other than semantics, your discussion has to be grounded in why you care about one term or the other being applied.