My first issue, even without reading the paper, is that in order to be a store-of-value, there must be some value to store. If Bitcoin is nothing more than a store-of-value, then it has none.
Now, on to the paper.
The author claims that PQ (in MV = PQ) is the the cost of running the system (mining in the Bitcoin case), and concludes that the value of M can be primarily based on its use as a store-of-value, with little regard to its utility as a payment system. Unfortunately, that is both circular reasoning and contradictory in the Bitcoin case. The truth is that the cost of mining depends on M because of the subsidy and on the utility as the payment system because of the fees.
Please note that M, in this case, represents the value of the money supply.M depending on PQ when PQ depends on M is circular reasoning. Actually, both depending on each other is reasonable if you consider it to be something like a feedback loop, but in that case both M and PQ must then depend on other factors.
M depending on the cost of mining, which in turn depends on fees, is a direct statement that M depends on the utility as a payment system. Thus the conclusion that Bitcoin's value can be unrelated to its utility as a payment system is a contradiction.
