Strong disagree that there's not much else to say. Man, there's things at the very foundation of what it means for something to acquire value de novo that haven't been said in a way that's relevant to btc! Instead, we get yet another hot take of "money solves the coincidence of wants" blah blah blah, but literally zero has been written drawing from other traditions on the history of money, e.g., sociological, anthropological.

It would be actual news to most bitcoiners, I expect, that there is a robust and extensive literature on money that is (imo) much more relevant to the unique trajectory of btc monetizing out of pure abstraction than is the Austrian-derived commodity-money story -- which is a delicious irony given that most actual Austrian economists think btc is bullshit due to violations of the regression theorem -- but all these accounts are gaping holes in the btc mythology.

This is the echo chamber that I'm talking about. It's possible that you (not you in particular, @jgbtc, but 'you' as in 'the hypothetical reader') think that Carl Menger said everything sensible that would ever need saying about money and the origin of value, but most of the world does not share that opinion, and most of the world is who has yet to care about btc. Those would be hugely valuable perspectives to include in the mix as we try to understand what this thing is and could be and how it could get there.