I'm pretty disappointed by this article. I don't mind a negative take on bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency, but I would expect more from this publication when laying out an argument against any particular asset.

Why does a cryptocurrency have to be the single, unifying currency to have value? The US dollar is not the world's only currency, and before anyone says that it is the "reserve currency" for global trade, how do you explain the continued existence of the Euro, Canadian dollar, Japanese Yen, etc?

Why does a cryptocurrency have to be "more secure" than its fiat alternative? I think an argument can be made that it is secure in ways you have not noted (no government can print more at their whim, devaluing what you own--which is a form of insecurity inherent to all fiat).

Why is an appreciating price (during a period long before mass adoption) an indication of unsuitability as a currency?

Why do you consider an investment to only be an investment if the asset produces a "yield" or dividend? Many investments (maybe even most) do not produce dividends or yields.

As an alternative to gold, you ask why not just hold gold? Do you really have to ask that question? Because gold is not nearly as divisible, storable, or transportable, and it cannot be used as a means of exchange except in the most cumbersome of transactions.

Bitcoin has been the best performing asset for several years, and if you want to write that off as nothing more than a modern day tulip mania, that's certainly your prerogative. However, you do your readers a disservice to comment about something you are apparently this unfamiliar with--or writing about a subject you know in such a disingenuous way as to raise such false concerns.