But if unbounded participants can get in and out at will, then it starts becoming a money.
There is no such definition of money that says this. And there is no founded reasoning to suggest that bitcoin must become "money", whatever your definition of money turns out to be anyways. Gold is not unbounded and it has a cost to transact which is going to be more than bitcoin. Your argument is effectively if gold's cost to transact decreases by 1/2 that this will increase the value. But the markets don't value gold for its tractability in this regard. And neither does a market that is looking for an inflation hedge.
It is only on the one hand that increasing the users could increase bitcoin's value. It is on the other hand that bitcoin, if left as is, will attract high value metaplayers, big banks, and international settlement etc.
The more liquid a store of wealth be, the more useful it is to those who control it. More utility: more value. More value: higher price. Higher price: better store of wealth. It's a virtuous circle.
Yes and so we should raise the tps to infinite and then bitcoin will increase to infinity value as a world money. The problem is this is not a virtuous circle, its circular logic that isn't founded. And I have the impression now that you don't understand what a founded argument is.
And BurtW has just told you that it had been an all-but-universal belief among Bitcoiners that scaling solutions would be forthcoming in some form or another. You seemed to accept this proposition. I certainly believe that to be true.
So if you are suddenly advancing the new proposition that Bitcoin should be artificially limited, it is you that is introducing uncertainty.
Again, you aren't using FOUNDED economic literature and science. Economics believes the markets act rationally. It cannot be that a bunch of vocal forum critics can decide that the will of the markets follow their own. The markets are the clairvoyant being, not the individual.
If there is economic literature that says not increasing Bitcoin's tps will increase its value, kindly point me to it. Or if there is economic literature that says increasing Bitcoin's tps will not increase its value, kindly point me to that.
This isn't how science works and its not how the markets work. The markets will require
a scientifically founded theory/proposal in order for a large enough majority to accept it. This is why, regardless of how obvious it is we will and have to scale, we haven't. I don't have to put out any theory in order for nothing to change and the 1mb limit to remain. In order for 1mb to be changed there has to be a scientifically founded proposal outlining the reasoning in regard to the macro economic implications of the change. If the proposal isn't founded the markets will reject it, and we now know the only founded proposal: Ideal Money.
Lacking a mutually accepted reference, uncovering the truth will require either: reasoning it out; or running the experiment.
It's already end game.
Reason tells me that more people getting more utility out of something would tend to increase its value (for any reasonable definition of value). So tear down that assertion.
It's not reason you are using, its cognitive bias and dissonance. You've stated a circular unfounded unscientific argument and you are re-asserted its correctness as your conclusion.