Bitcoin's use case is permission less peer to peer exchange. Anything else is speculation.

Repricing the world as the only verifiable finitely scarce money created through proof of work

Credit bubbles go until they can't anymore. Bitcoin isn't here to kill fiat. It's to be an Ark so that when fiat implodes under its own fragility, there is a monetary asset with sound money principles and means of exchange that are permissionless and verifiable over long distances in a very short amount of time. Arguably the more people opt out of fiat, the sooner its fragility gets to it, as the whole issue is that it is backed by an indefinitely large web of rehypothecated real collateral. Calling it fiat is something of a confusing point I suppose, because it's really just credit -- ledger money, and not technically the same thing as true fiat which only draws value by mandate (and is actually even worse). The taxation mandate plays a role, as do reserve type requirements, but it is still more a promise that in the future these notes will be accepted for real shit. Even in antiquity when ledger money was in broad use, largely before gold had been monetized and other commodity money had other drawbacks (such as spoilage or supply issues), debt jubilees would be the pressure relief when these systems would become unsustainable. The issue with a debt jubilee though is that you are at the end of the day robbing the ones who are saving their own resources and financing economic activity (with more or less corruption and exploitation of course) and they're keen on avoiding being the bag holder. Sound money provides a solution that requires no one to hold the bag, and the jubilee to not be required. If you have a hybrid system, you end up somewhere in between which realistically is more likely. But prohibitions on riba/usury have at times had us closer to sound money than others. But yes, it sounds like you're calling out the cartoonish oversimplification (one of many I hear often). Monetary literacy is quite low. Even in Bitcoin where it's better than average I'd still deem it sophomoric.

Your entire thesis is based on the assumption that most people have a 120+ IQ. Good luck with that.

But the people who have the wealth don't care about that. They're happier leveraging it for speculation to increase their wealth. Things dont have value only because theyre scarce. There has to be demand also. Demand happens on the individual and social layer, not on the protocol. What forces the wealth into Bitcoin?

But something has to drive demand.

Digital real estate

Lol but the question is *what makes people desire* this real estate. There's plenty of real estate nobody cares about.

Cyber hornets

Lmao That must be it

I don’t think anything forces wealth into bitcoin per se, it’s a permissionless protocol, non coercive by nature. The better question would be why would someone need bitcoin?Predatory governments, collapses in trust, a police state, complete anarchy with widespread violence and coercion like pre-Bukele El Salvador, Weimer-esque hyperinflations. Being able to take your life’s earnings anywhere in the world in your head is highly valuable. I would expect the central banking cartel, who benefit the most from seniorage, would be the last group to voluntarily adopt proof of work permissionless money. Their cronies can play the same casino games in the short term, but the games come to an end over time. And granted, a lot of us are from America or the first world, we don’t need bitcoin to save our families from starvation. We use it to to defend our wages and savings from debasement. But its properties are valuable, and without scarcity I don’t think it has the same value.