Is Bitcoin doing what it was supposed to do? Over the past few weeks, I’ve been asking a simple question: Is Bitcoin doing what it was supposed to do? When I asked publicly whether there is a reason to buy Bitcoin right now, I didn’t get answers. I got ridicule. Not a single serious attempt to engage with the question itself - just variations of “you’re stupid” and “you don’t understand.” That reaction alone is worth pausing on. Throughout history, when a thesis is strong, it can tolerate scrutiny. When it becomes fragile, questions feel like attacks. I’ve seen this pattern before. I saw it when I questioned NFTs. I saw it when I questioned @chamath SPACs. In both cases, skepticism was treated as ignorance - until reality caught up and the certainty evaporated. So I want to lay out my thinking clearly, without slogans. Bitcoin was originally presented as several things: •Peer-to-peer electronic cash •A hedge against monetary debasement •A store of value outside the system •An asset that benefits when trust in institutions erodes Some of these promises worked. Some didn’t. Bitcoin is still censorship-resistant. Self-custody still matters. That part of the design functions. But as a medium of exchange, it failed. It’s slow, expensive during congestion, and too volatile to price real economic activity. Almost nobody uses it that way anymore. As a hedge against inflation or systemic stress, the evidence is weak. In practice, Bitcoin has behaved like a high-beta risk asset - rising with liquidit y and falling when liquidity tightens. It has sold off during precisely the macro conditions it was meant to protect against. As a store of value, it remains unproven. A true store of value needs stability across regimes, broad social consensus, and low reflexivity. Bitcoin today is still narrative-driven, liquidity-dependent, and reflexive. That doesn’t mean it can’t become a store of value - it means it is not one yet. The most common remaining argument is scarcity: “Only 21 million, and nobody can take it from you.” Scarcity alone is not an investment thesis. If it were, every rare object would be money. A real thesis requires answering harder questions: •Who must buy next? •Why must they buy? •Under what conditions do they stop buying? Most Bitcoin arguments no longer go that far. They stop at belief. I’m not saying Bitcoin can’t go back to all-time highs. It might. It might not. Markets don’t owe anyone a return, and past narratives are not contracts. What I am saying is this: Until the thesis is rebuilt on something other than faith, Bitcoin is not a buy for me. That view is not anti-Bitcoin. It’s pro-thinking. I’m open to being proven wrong. I always am. But conviction without a model is just identity, and attacking questions instead of answering them is usually a sign that something important is breaking underneath. So I’ll keep asking the same question - calmly, without slogans: Is Bitcoin doing what it was supposed to do? And if the answer changes one day, I’ll change with it.