[throw0101d]

> Bitcoin as a digital store of value is fine.

It is not. It has multiple >70% drawdowns over the last ~decade:

* https://newhedge.io/terminal/bitcoin/price-drawdown

During the 1930s US stock market crash, things went down 90% and, a century later, has never been that bad. Bitcoin has had multiple Great Depression equivalent drops in one-tenth the time.

Something that is a good store of value should not be volatile: it should keep it's value, or at least be fairly predictable in the rate of decay.

[bufferoverflow]

> Something that is a good store of value should not be volatile

If it mostly goes up, it's still a good store of value, even if the volatility is high.

So far it outperformed every fiat currency on the planet.

[throw0101d]

> If it mostly goes up, it's still a good store of value, even if the volatility is high.

So does the stock market, but if I want to buy a house in 2025, I don't keep my downpayment savings in the stock market but rather in a savings vehicle that protects the principal. I don't want something that goes down (or up) regularly if I want to store value: I want something that is predictable so when I go back to it to spend it (the whole point of currencies) I have a rough idea of what I'll have to work with.

> So far it outperformed every fiat currency on the planet.

The point of currencies is not performance but stability.

[gobindoriu]

How does a new thing become a store of value?

Could it be that there is a path to medium of exchange ->store of value? -> unit of account?

That could explain the volatility while the market prices it correctly

[throw0101d]

> That could explain the volatility while the market prices it correctly

Even if we grant that, Bitcoin has probably not reached that point (yet?).