I see the point you're making, but nostr:nprofile1qqs0npwnpyvheqz7zuvuwvv9k460c0hyqlturds40hhfn34vufvehwcpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3xamnwvaz7tmsw4e8qmr9wpskwtn9wvhsz9nhwden5te0wfjkccte9ehx7um5wghxyctwvs2cvucv is right, and he already addresses this when he says we trust it because we believe in the fundamentals.

This is true of anything considered a store of value. In fact, the term "store of value" is domain specific to the field of figuring this stuff out; it is a trait of money coined by people that try to understand money.

The temporal aspect is not open ended. "A serious person" might consider it a store of value after 10,000 years. Some people point to gold and use the argument that it is well proven. But as soon as someone brings a solid gold asteroid into orbit that no is no longer true. So a serious person would point to something and call it a store of value when they understand the fundamentals and those fundamentals are sound. How long something has successfully functioned is just a heuristic by which to judge that, and not the actual criteria that determines that. Lots of people trust heuristics over their fundamental premises, so you can expect most people to say "pfft 15 years? I'm not putting my grandfather's fortune in that!" Gold was just as sound a SoV the first time a nugget was mined as it is today, but good luck taking that first ever nugget to an atlatl maker and trading it for a weapon. Perceived value is social in nature and not based on objective criteria and understanding for all except rebels.