Bitcoin from the beginning was not branded purely as a store of value. They coined the term Crypto"currency" off of Bitcoin not Crypt"gold". You can try to compare Bitcoin to gold because that is what people are using it as now, but Bitcoin has considerably more volatility than gold. A store of value should not lose 20% of value in a single day. Again, it is not Bitgold.

A currency by definition is:

A unit of account
A store of a value
A medium exchange
Is broadly accepted

Bitcoin failed at most of them and defaulted to be a store of value.

Crypto enthusiast call anything other than crypto "fiat". Fiat actually means anything not backed by gold. Therefore almost all crypto are also fiat. The implication here was that crypto was real money and that dollars were fake.

Fiat more specifically means by decree ie backed by government decree, but cryptos are also backed by governance via the consensus mechanism--just "decentralized" governance. I put decentralized in quotes because the open exchange between cryptos and dollars means that consolidation of many of cryptos are still possible which allows a portion of individuals to theoretically control the governance and recentralize of these currencies.

Traditional paper money has also historically been decentralized. I wrote a whole article about how that experiment has failed multiple times. When you think about a lot of the new crypto projects that connect different blockchains together. That actually creates a form integration which is a middle ground between decentralization and increased centralization. Multilayer tokens can be a form central bank over regional bank. The history of currency has an ebb and flow between central and decentral.

As far as P/E ratio goes, a lot of tech companies have negative earnings or close to zero earnings for a long time. Amazon was mocked as Amazon.org for a long time because it turned 0 profits. The very low earnings in modern tech companies distorts the usefulness of the P/E ratio. BTC does not have a trillion dollar market cap, but nearly all of the trillion dollar tech companies have had at one time or another really bad looking P/Es

From a fundamentals point of view a lot of tech companies have bad fundamentals. You can run them into financial models and they look bad. My Grad school professor actually ran Tesla through a fundamentals model and explained to us how bad Tesla looks on the surface. This was back in 2018, but he explained that there was a small possibility that Tesla could make it and be an extremely valuable company.

For your reference, this is what a fundamentals models looks like in a graduate level finance course:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GF07RociteP-rL3yCzZ1hMHfOMz1nssy/view?usp=sharing

I filled out this model in the summer of 2018 using Activision for my final cause I'm a gamer and Activision is the largest gaming company in the United States, but you could delete all of the numbers an fill them in with Tesla--that is what my professor used as a class example or any other company. Enjoy!

P.S.

You can't even run BTC in a model like that because it doesn't have traditional fundamentals. I love finance and fundamentals, but they have limitations.