Yeah. And in thinking that the term "intrinsic value" is meaningful, revealed himself as a weak-thinker.
Well, you can define "intrinsic value" as the value an asset would have on the market, if it was only produced, traded and exchanged for the purpose of using it as a consumption good or as a capital good (capital as in production capital), and not as a store of value of any kind.
Bitcoin has no intrinsic value at all, and gold has only a very limited intrinsic value: to make jewelry (in as much as it is only used to be worn as jewelry, and not as an investment or store of value), and a few industrial uses. Fiat has no intrinsic value either.
The total market value of an asset is the intrinsic value combined with its speculative value as a monetary asset. For bitcoin and fiat, the total market value is entirely made up of the speculative value. For gold, it is mainly made up of the speculative value.
But you could think that in primitive economies, cereals could be not only food, but also an intermediate exchange good (money). As such, a certain quantity of cereals would then be held purely for monetary reasons, which would make their demand higher on the market than if it would only be demanded to make food. The price increase due to the extra demand for monetary reasons, is the speculative monetary value ; the market price if the demand were only for making food, would be the intrinsic value.
It is a good thing that money has no intrinsic value ; because due to the monetary function, the market price is higher than the intrinsic value, which would damage the real use of the asset. If cereals would have a very high monetary price, everybody would hoard them, and people would starve because cereals would become too expensive to make food of.
