The debate about Bitcoin as a method of payment versus a store of value is ongoing. With prices consistently above $100k, the relentless push from ETF issuers and Bitcoin treasury companies, and the inevitable institutionalization of the space, using Bitcoin for small payments seems more alien than ever.

But is Jack Dorsey right in saying that Bitcoin fails if it’s only a store of value and not used for payments?

Bitcoin as a method of payment

Bitcoin was fundamentally created as a means of payment, a real form of electronic cash for private, peer-to-peer transactions, while its store of value status appeared later as an added benefit. As BitVM creator Robin Linus states:

“Bitcoin’s purpose is payments—store of value is just a neat byproduct.”

Over time, the dominant narrative around Bitcoin has shifted heavily toward “digital gold” and institutional investment, and many influential voices, like Dorsey and Linus, argue this misses the project’s original spirit and shortchanges its long-term relevance. Linus reinforced the historical perspective, declaring:

“The cypherpunk vision was clearly electronic cash for private, peer-to-peer payments. The ‘digital asset’ narrative came later from others. Strange that this is even controversial”.

Dorsey doubled down on his statement, saying:

“I think it has to be payments for it to be relevant on the everyday, otherwise, it’s just something you kind of buy and forget and only use in emergency situations or when you want to get liquid again. So I think if it doesn’t transition to payments and find that everyday use case, it just gets increasingly irrelevant. And that’s failure to me.”

Satoshi’s words leave no doubt

Satoshi Nakamoto’s very first communications, emails,

Go to Source to See Full Article
Author: Christina Comben