There's an ongoing debate in and outside of Bitcoin community regarding the economic nature of Bitcoin: is it a currency or an asset, a store of value, settlement layer and so on. The situation with ETF's also sparked some debates, as some argue that ETF's are bad and Bitcoin should stick to its cypherpunk roots and ignore the mainstream.
I think all sides kinda miss the point of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was created so people can send coins directly to others, without any mandatory middleman. Therefore, every use case is as legit as any other use case, it doesn't violate the freedom of any other user of the network. It doesn't even matter if Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to be a decentralized currency that will kill banks, because one of the principles of Bitcoin is censorship resistance, so if some people want to use centralized services, want regulated environments, speculation and so on, it's their right. All those things have no effect on people who want to use Bitcoin as an alternative currency.
So, I think there is no single answer to whether Bitcoin is an asset or a currency, everyone decides for themselves, because freedom is the ultimate point of Bitcoin.
ah, what a great table topic here hatshespsut!urpass
The use of mandatory middleman and of course fiat money explains a lot of how other crowdfunding was able to surpass our doubts and fears.
You see, with bitcoin's principle of resistance (how i feel we are inside the yellow bricks), anyone tasked to do something will remain loyal to his job to show how much the company means to us.
