This paper is far too long to debunk step by step. I've read it, it's nonsense. Point number three in particular is not even a good faith argument.
3. Bitcoin is not a currency - Nakamoto (2008) presented Bitcoin as useful for society through its payment function, but his related arguments were already rather unclear at that time. There is today in any case a broad consensus that Bitcoin fails in its original objective of being a currency. Bitcoin is too volatile to fulfil the classic functions of money: unit of account, means of payment, store of value (see figure 3 illustrating the exceptional volatility of Bitcoin). Moreover, the system is too slow and expensive to compete with established payment systems and currencies. Incentivizing system maintenance without central authority is challenging and expensive. The lack of acceptance by merchants due to long settlement times and high fees (currently between USD 2,5 and 4 per transaction) already shows that Bitcoin cannot be understood as a means of payment outside of niches. Therefore, Bitcoin’s business model as a global means of payment is not plausible.
How hilarious...
This wouldn't be an issue if there was mass adoption. Reason there's market volatility is because there aren't enough users involved in crypto (thanks to government over regulating crypto or outright banning it). And the lack system maintenance is a great thing. Ask yourself -- when has the government ever shifted fiscal policy that's resulted in a net benefit for its citizens? If centralized banks act irresponsibly and manufacture a crisis because they have the control, they do not get credit for creating a fix. Driving yourself into a ditch and then patting yourself on the back once you get out is not an accomplishment. There wouldn't be much need for "system maintenance" with a decentralized currency because the supply doesn't depend on how the government feels on a particular day.
