[radiusvector]

I think the analogy with FB might be interesting, but intrinsically inaccurate.

The value people get from FB is related to the value of other people being on the network, but there is an intrinsic value drived from the different use cases on the platform - photos, messaging, likes, fomo and what not. Which has directly been monetized using advertising.

The value you get from other people using Bitcoin is that the price goes up, without any other intrinsic value aside from "Maybe my investment grows" - in effect following the 'greater fool' theory (Buffett), or the 'castle in the air' theory (Malkiel et al).

[dcow]

No! Bitcoin is a currency not a commodity. There is plenty of value in using it on those merits and that value increases the currency proliferates.

[radiusvector]

The "currency" use-case has not proliferated or reached adoption at a scale (by any measure) that would make it a worthy medium of exchange, which fundamentally is the definition of a currency.

[dcow]

The paper precisely argues that the proliferation of BTC as a currency is a factor in their assertion about the value.