My point exactly.

To my knowlege, there has never been a widely accepted currency that has an absolute fixed maximum supply. As the supply is a known, not just estimated, quantity, and the currency has no intrinsic or practical use (gold CAN be used for other things other than a currency) demand will largely be determined by acceptance. If it becomes widely accepted, as it seems to be more and more each day, then the network effect will kick in and make Bitcoin a very hard currency.

That's why I've never understood those who wish to "burn" crypto as a strategy to increase demand by decreasing supply. If it is harder for people to get into crypto, that is more expensive, then mass adoption will be harder to achieve. For a currency that has no practical or intrinsic value, like crypto, it seems to me that easy and cheap acquisition by the masses is a much better way to achieve mass adoption, and thus inducing the holy network effect. I think STEEM could use something like this where instead of burning STEEM by sending to "null" (I assume there are folks still doing this...I'm not as active here as I used to be), that the "null" account keep the STEEM in play, but just delegate it to new users for a certain time frame. Something like 100 STEEM for those who make one post a week for a year's time. Maybe a graduated program like 200 STEEM for those making 3 posts a week and 500 who make at least one post a day. Then you get people hooked on the site, on making STEEM and, after a year, their delegated STEEM goes to another newbie, but we've hooked the first one already so they continue on with their own account as a result of the network effect.

But, I digress. My point in all this is that I agree Bitcoin, as well as STEEM, can become hard currencies, if they can become the beneficiaries of the network effect of mass adoption and demand. However, "If" is a small word, with a big meaning.