In particular, it is used to define Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a "store of value" while other coins are not. Many people seem to just accept this as a fact without really double-checking what store of value means, and why Bitcoin would be one but other crypto's wouldn't.
Bitcoin absolutely is not a store of value. I often refer to Bitcoin's niche as a store of security and as the ultimate truth-table and random number generator. If anything, Bitcoin doesn't store value, it generates value. Why call something a store of value when it is legit doubling in value every year? Clearly it's not storing the value, it's multiplying it. Precious metals don't do this. Why compare Bitcoin to PMs? It's silly. Gold 2.0 is a sham.
It's not a store of value because USD valuation can drop 80%.
A lot of people out there make this argument. They are correct, for the wrong reasons, which is just as bad as being flat out incorrect (even worse maybe because they'll never figure out why their logic fails them during extrapolation).
I realized yesterday that the best thing to compare Bitcoin to is professional gambling (poker in particular). One hand of poker is 100% luck, while a million hands of poker is 100% skill with an associated average hourly wage (I was making around $20/h over a decade ago).
This also ties into the recent concepts I've explained about lowering the bar for more jobs and professions to move in. Anyone who simply buys and holds Bitcoin becomes a successful professional gambler. The only skill required is to HODL over long periods of time. While this may not sound like a skill to some, it absolutely is to anyone who's actually attempted it through the ups and downs of the market cycles.
Similarly to poker, holding Bitcoin on a short timeline is 100% luck, while holding it on a long time line is 100% skill and guaranteed to turn a profit. Given this fact that has been proven several times over thus far, Bitcoin is obviously a generator of value. It multiplies the value we put in exponentially over time. Every 4-year block is an automatic guaranteed gain. Welcome to the abundance economy. Bitcoin is the gateway drug.
Many people wrongfully point at the scarcity of Bitcoin as to what gives it its constantly ascending value and store-of-value status. This is clearly false rhetoric (as Litecoin does exactly the same thing, just with a different algorithm and difficultly level). What gives Bitcoin value is the security and expanding infrastructure of the network. Trust is now the ultimate commodity, and it is in very short supply these days.
This is also why people assume that Bitcoin is a store of value but other projects without a capped supply aren't. Again, this is incorrect. Inflation only dilutes the value of the asset if it is being allocated to the wrong places. The reason why fiat loses value over time is that the people controlling it funnel the value into their own pockets at the expense of everyone else (what a surprise).
On a very real level, "store-of-value" is a nothing statement that has been derived from the steadily declining value of fiat. There would be no such thing as the term "store of value" if fiat wasn't losing value. What store-of-value actually means in this context is "not bleeding value like those shitty privately owned currencies".
Gold and silver are no longer used as currency. They've completely lost all their value as a medium of exchange. How did this happen? It happened because of fiat. It happened because of technology. It's not possible to transfer value using PMs over the internet; this is what gives crypto its superior status as a MoE (and fiat as well). Crypto is both digital and controlled by no one. Self-governance within an environment that is immune to lethal force (imperialism) is the key.
Lots of libertarians and whoever else believe that precious metals are being grossly manipulated by derivatives and are very undervalued. While this is somewhat true, we also must recognize that PMs have lost a ton of value because technology has created better solutions.
Interestingly enough, technology also creates a need for PMs on the production floor. We use gold and silver in electronics. Interesting, isn't it? PMs have lost all of their value as a medium of exchange, but then gained value as a commodity and hedge against corrupt fiat currencies.
Many wrongfully project competition onto crypto and see it as an upgrade to gold and silver as a "store of value". Again, this is wrong, but there are also silver linings of truth at the edges. Just like technology took away medium of exchange from PMs, crypto will take away "store of value" from them as well.
I've already explained why this doesn't matter. Crypto and PMs are friends. They work together. They synergize. Crypto is all about robust backup and preventing systemic failure at the cost of short-term efficiency. Gold and silver are robust analog backups to the financial system. To assume that they will be snuffed out by platforms that have a foundation of robust redundancy? Absurd logic.
So while gold has already lost medium of exchange and will lose the store of value narrative as well... doesn't matter. Not at all. It's use in production will increase, and its use as a robust hedge will increase as well. Hedges aren't investments; they are failsafes. Crypto values failsafes at the very core of the culture.
For the most part, "store of value" is a meaningless buzzword espoused by maximalists and gold bugs as a way to give legitimacy to their own toxic tribalism. It requires multiple layers of mental gymnastics to convince oneself that Bitcoin is a store of value while other solutions are not. It requires delusion and projection sourced from legacy capitalism to impose competition onto open-source cooperative networks.
Crypto networks do not compete with one another. Every network will stand on its own two feet (and be empowered by the others) or will implode due to systemic failure of a highly experimental asset. Crypto networks do not complete with gold or silver either, largely due to similar logistics.
The only reason why the term "store of value" even exists in the first place is because fiat currencies: don't. The funny thing about that is there is no rule that says fiat has to lose value over time. It just tends to work out that way in a centralized debt-based system that craves stability. What happens when fiat currencies move to a different model? Is that an unreasonable expectation? Maybe. But also maybe not. I think that greatly depends on how badly the current system collapses and what kinds of solutions crypto has to offer at that time.
