Sorry, I'm not sure if I understand your question/statement.
What I wanted to say, is that in its current form, bitcoin IS money for some ultrarich people who have enough of it AND are able to access a commerce world where you can actually buy stuff with it without converting it to fiat currencies. Because last time I checked, I can't buy milk with BTC in my local supermarket, but I bet I can buy some luxury/illegal thing that cost absurd amounts of money (for the common folk) with BTC.
Therefor, the mantra of "Bitcoin is the future of money" that's being pushed by BTC/crypto enthusiasts, is false. It MIGHT be a form of money for people who have lots of it, but not the common folk, doing everyday purchases.
the mantra of "Bitcoin is the future of
money" that's being pushed
I don't see that mantra used in the context of Bitcoin's market cap.
In the concept of value, the aspects of Bitcoin that are relevant is that it has a broad ownership strucure, is finite in supply, is easy to store, validate and transfer.
As the financial system is set up right now, Bitcoin has a lot of potential to reduce friction. For cross-country payments as well as for buying coffee:
Speed, fees, finality.
But the lightning network will have to mature first. We will see if the global financial system evolves faster than the Bitcoin ecosystem. I would expect Bitcoin's ecosystem to evolve faster.
The fact that Bitcoin's blockchain is unusable without unofficial, unreliable and slow L2 chains is kinda evidence that it doesn't have much potential left. If you're a serious country considering using Bitcoin, why even use Lightning at all when you could use a fundamentally better-designed currency? Why invest in Bitcoin if it's already breaking?
It is only unusable for small transfers. Considering it is at only 10% of the Gold market cap - which is even more unusable for small transfers - I think it would even have a lot of potential left without L2s.
As for Lightning being unreliable and slow - I don't see a technical reason for it to stay this way.
What do you consider a "better-designed currency"?
What I wanted to say, is that in its current form, bitcoin IS money for some ultrarich people who have enough of it AND are able to access a commerce world where you can actually buy stuff with it without converting it to fiat currencies. Because last time I checked, I can't buy milk with BTC in my local supermarket, but I bet I can buy some luxury/illegal thing that cost absurd amounts of money (for the common folk) with BTC.
Therefor, the mantra of "Bitcoin is the future of money" that's being pushed by BTC/crypto enthusiasts, is false. It MIGHT be a form of money for people who have lots of it, but not the common folk, doing everyday purchases.