The exact same house can sell for far more in New York City or by the beach than in an Oklahoma cul-de-sac. The building has the same physical properties. Buyers value its location differently.

That creates a problem for the phrase “intrinsic value.” A discounted cash flow model depends on assumptions, and analysts have no universal standard for calculating a company's intrinsic value. Gold and real estate also trade far beyond their direct industrial use or shelter value.

Value comes from what people expect an asset to do for them. Utility, scarcity, psychology, and expectations about the future shape demand. A glass of water matters more to someone dying of thirst than to someone beside a clean faucet, although the water has not changed.

Bitcoin fits the same framework. People value its fixed supply, global transfer, and the ability to hold wealth without relying on a counterparty. Its price changes as people reassess that utility and future demand, just as prices change for stocks, gold, and property.

The useful question is not whether bitcoin contains value as a physical property. Which capabilities matter to people, and how much will they value them over time?

Read the argument and use a better framework for judging bitcoin: https://firebtc.io/p/the-intrinsic-value-myth