Bitcoin supporters often lean heavily on identity claims like
“Bitcoin is a currency,”
“Bitcoin is money,” or
“Bitcoin is digital gold.”
But saying what Bitcoin is skips the more important question:
What does Bitcoin do?
When we look at what Bitcoin actually does — in practical, functional terms —
its role as a currency, payment method, or store of value is incredibly niche:
| Function | Bitcoin | Alternatives |
|---|---|---|
| Payments | <0.05% of global transactions | PayPal, Visa, fiat (~99%) |
| Remittances | <1% globally, ~2–3% in El Salvador | Western Union, Wise, banks (~99%) |
| Loans | <0.1% of global loan volume | Fiat loans, mortgages, credit (~100%) |
| Credit & Financial Services | Extremely limited or unavailable | Credit cards, lines of credit, leasing, etc. |
| Store of Value | Market-dependent, no guarantee | Stocks, bonds, real estate, cash |
| Everyday Purchases | Rare | Cash, cards, Apple/Google Pay, Venmo, etc. |
Yes, Bitcoin is used by some for remittances, some for payments, and some for speculative saving —
but that’s not a sign of strength. That’s a sign of fragmentation.
It does a little bit of everything, but doesn’t dominate anything.
I’m not dismissing what Bitcoin does — I’m just comparing it to the other tools that do the same jobs better.
You can’t claim Bitcoin is a currency while refusing to compare it to fiat — which supports loans, legal contracts, financial services, and is used for accounting.
You can’t claim Bitcoin is for payments without comparing it to PayPal or Visa — systems that handle billions of transactions reliably.
And if someone argues that Bitcoin’s value comes from its use cases,
then they should be willing to quantify those uses — and compare them honestly to competitors.
Because if the actual use is niche, then so is the value.
TL;DR:
Stop saying what Bitcoin is. Start measuring what it does.
That’s how we evaluate value in every other sector — why should Bitcoin be exempt?