pull down to refresh
Perhaps inherent value is the wrong term. With your clarification, I'd just say value.
That makes it easier then to compare I think...
Stones/shells didn't start out as money, but people collected them for ornamental purposes, then money emerged from that bootstrapping by mineral spergs
Bitcoin started out as a toy collectible much in the same way, even though it was designed as money, value still had to emerge from an otherwise valueless ornament for spergs
The toy collectible thing is my favorite answer to this question. All the other moneys that started that way didn't do too well in the long run though, but perhaps this initial value thing is independent of a money's trajectory.
Yes I look at it as it was designed to make the jump from toy to money, it couldn't be money day 0 because money is emergent
Perhaps spergs can see the inherent value in things normies take longer to see.
Like the first predetermined and strictly limited total issuance of any commodity in the known universe.
Guaranteed, no normie would find a chunk of gold and flatten it into a disc for barter.
Your other answers (db/membership) are the kinds of answers I usually encounter which might explain this problem well enough - although it's kind of unsatisfying. In that spirit we could also say that blockspace was collectible, a ledger entry was a collectible.
Cloud services / software, Bitcoin is a hosted database
Accreditation / membership, Bitcoin is a network
Value is subjective, so ornaments have no "inherent" value as you put it, only utility is inherent value, and history is rife with non-utility