Here's some info about the "bullion famine" in 15th century Europe.
According to Wikipedia:
The Great Bullion Famine was a shortage of precious metals that struck Europe in the 15th century, with the worst years of the Famine lasting from 1457 to 1464. During the Middle Ages, gold and silver coins saw widespread use as currency in Europe, and facilitated trade with the Middle East and Asia; the shortage of these metals therefore became a problem for European economies. The main cause for the bullion famine was outflow of silver to the East unequaled by European mining output, although 15th century contemporaries believed the bullion famine to be caused by hoarding.
The discovery of the Americas with its silver and gold, along with innovations in mining techniques, and the Portuguese gaining access to African gold ended the bullion famine.
The colonization of America leads to increased supply of gold and silver,which caused the first case of high inflation in the medieval European economy.
More gold means more inflation,but that's just the medieval economy.
Anyway,this article is criticizing Bitcoin for something that we already know.
Being a good store of value is better than being a good medium of exchange,if you ask me.
Bitcoin can be both,but nobody says that Bitcoin is totally perfect.
I wonder why are you comparing Bitcoin to fixed supply tokens.
Scarcity itself isn't enough to give value to some asset.
You could create some centralized token with a fixed supply of 1 million tokens,but that doesn't mean that this token will become better and more valuable than Bitcoin.
Security and utility are what gives the value of an asset.Scarcity can only increase that value even further.
