By holding bitcoin, I have the ownership of a number(monopoly money), and faith that in five years, unknown people will voluntarily trade me things that I can live off of for monopoly money.
And you are trying to convince me that the second deal is better than the first? And all that because someone gave fancy name to monopoly money and because a crypto community and people like franky1 write poems about it?
1. holding fiat money promises you nothing. a bank note does not earn you interest. infact each year you lose value holding fiat.
the longer you hold onto a bank note, the less you can buy with it
also, if you deposit banknotes into a bank. you are giving in your bank note in exchange to allow them to fractional reserve it to create new loans where they might pay you 0.01% of their profits if you leave it with them for a year, but even this is far below inflation, so your still losing
2. bitcoin in 2009 had like a penny of true cost of creation value. where people liked it because it had features that were different to bank notes. it had a purpose/function/benefit/utility(things you ignore). this incentivised more people to want it.(2010+) and so the competition to create it(mining) increased the cost of creating it. which then translated to the market value of acquiring without mining it to increase.
if bitcoin changed where it became useless as a currency. offering nothing better than other currencies where majority of people stopped using it. thus impacting the mining cost, where( instead of $35k-$85k to mine(now)) it became like $2 to mine, then the market rate would come down to a value window of $2-$5.. instead of the current cost,utility cost value window of $35k-$85k
once you understand the cost/value window. your question then becomes why would anyone pay $70k if it can be acquired by some means for atleast $35k(price within a value window)