I tend to agree, and my musings to the contrary were mostly just spitballing. But to play devil's advocate because it's fun: to the degree to which it is usefu

I tend to agree, and my musings to the contrary were mostly just spitballing. But to play devil's advocate because it's fun: to the degree to which it is useful to hold onto the currency you also use as a medium of exchange, then perhaps that does provide a value floor. In other words--assuming it is successful as a means of exchange--the fact that you have to pay a transaction cost to get out of a BTC position means you'd rather hold onto BTCs so you can use them later at no penalty. So then they would have intrinsic value, based on your aversion to trading them for something else; anything that makes you want to hold BTC other than their market price counts. The question there because which is the chicken and which the egg: being a successful means of exchange or being a good store of value? And of course, whether that transaction fee provides a meaningful enough floor. I'm not convinced of that either, and it's especially weird to have the thing enforcing the floor to be falling, but it's fun to think about.