I don't bother to create a new thread, I'll just write it in here, since I'll quote part of that website. While I find every answer proper,
except the volatility that I quoted above, I've taken a better look on the first answer and it is, no offense, ridiculous.
For proponents, Bitcoin's intrinsic value lies in the fact that it is a scarce, uncorrelated asset with unique intangible properties (immutable, open, borderless, decentralized, censorship resistant, etc.).
For the first time in history, anyone in the world with an internet connection can function as their very own bank while participating in the economy with full control of their wealth.
The seven characteristics of money are durability, portability, divisibility, uniformity, limited supply, and acceptability. Many bitcoin proponents adamantly believe that bitcoin checks all of these boxes and is therefore hard money with real intrinsic value.
Oftentimes, those who ascribe zero intrinsic value to bitcoin have done so by way of imperfect knowledge, a narrow perspective, and/or old-aged frameworks that under-represent, if not misrepresent, the capabilities of bitcoin and the very idea of "value".
People tend to confuse that every kind of money has intrinsic value. Well, that is very wrong assumption supposing you meant the term in
numismatics and not in
ethics nor in
finance. Intrinsic value of a currency is the market value of the constituent metal within the coin. In other words, it's the essence that can be used in some other activity, not
just for exchanging goods with it. It is the essence that makes it a good too.
Bitcoin, just like fiat currencies, doesn't have intrinsic value, because it can't be used beyond its exchanging purpose. It does have value, though. I don't get why that mania to make it intrinsically valuated.
