Maybe I misunderstood you, but I thought your point was that it's okay if maintaining the bitcoin network is very expensive because securing the GDP is even mor

Maybe I misunderstood you, but I thought your point was that it's okay if maintaining the bitcoin network is very expensive because securing the GDP is even more expensive, which is a flawed argument, because bitcoin doesn't remove the need for securing the GDP. Bitcoin's performance needs to be evaluated according to how it compares to other monetary systems in terms of cost-effectiveness, not against the cost of securing GDP. Regarding the question of bitcoin's utility as money. The defining trait of money is that it's used widely as medium of exchange, not that it holds value. An asset has to hold value reasonably well, for it to be able to be used as money, but holding value is not what makes an asset money. Some assets depreciate quickly and don't hold value, but most don't, most assets do store value and yet are not money. Is bitcoin a good store of value? No, it isn't, because a good store of value not only has to hold value over long periods, it also needs to have low volatility. Using a high volatility asset such as bitcoin as a store of value, means there's a big chance you may forced to sell it at times when its market price is well below your purchase price. Lastly, I don't know what "bitcoin's velocity" is. As far as I know, the velocity of money is a concept from the Quantity Theory of Money. The basic assumption that this theory makes is that GDP is sold and paid for with money. If you wanted to apply QTM to bitcoin, first you'd need to locate a country that sells its entire GDP in bitcoin, and only then you could calculate bitcoin's velocity, in principle. This velocity would be specific to this country. Then again, I'm not aware that such a country exist, so I don't know what you mean by bitcoin's velocity or why it is relevant to this conversation.