This, in my opinion, does not contradict what I said.
Mises and Rothbard are discussing the emergence of money as a concept. Ie why we transition from barter. It arises from the need to exchange goods and services.
I'm discussing the emergence of a new currency.
In a barter economy, people realize that some commodities are more stable / divisible / liquid, and use them as intermediary goods (money).
And then the market finds harder commodities that are harder to devalue.
And then the market accumulates capital and finds better stores of value.
But Bitcoin enters an established market economy where people's primary monetary needs are already met.
"Store or Value is a prerequisite for it to be a Medium of Exchange." and "store of wealth function is a derived and not a necessary function of money" cannot both be true.
Otherwise, something could be a money without being an MoE and, at least according to Menger and Mises, this isn't possible.
If your position is that you disagree with them then ok
I think the contradiction is surface level.
Something can be a store of wealth and not be money. Eg. real estate.
Money is by definition a medium of exchange, its "primary function."But not everything can be money. Value is a prerequisite, just like divisibility, fungibility, etc.
Yes, and the argument is that Bitcoin more resembles digital real estate
Menger/Mises are saying the exact opposite of your last point. According to them store of value *is not* a prerequisite for money. But if you think they are wrong that is okay.
I think you're missing the context of that quote. Anyways, I think what I think.
