[...] those two narratives need not be zero sum I do not think, game theory does not require strong winner to a narrative to preclude an alternate narrative.
I agree with this. The "ideal branding" could be a "hard type of money which can be used both for saving and for spending" and indeed I think it's not a zero sum game. [1]
My last post was more related to the "real" evolution of the "branding process" we have seen in the last 5-10 years, let's say from 2017 to now. In these years, the "store of value" aspect was promoted very strongly by several groups with different interests, while the "digital cash" aspect has stagnated.
I think in the last 1-2 years or so the "digital cash" narrative might have had a small renaissance (I see much more Bitcoin-accepting merchants now, even if it's not talked about much in the Bitcoin community, see
this thread for example), but it is too early to confirm if this can direct the "branding process" into the "cash" direction again. Volatility reduction is another aspect which could help to strengthen the "cash" aspect, as people would be more willing to spend and accept a more stable asset in a more natural way, instead of acting guided by fear and greed.
[1] Already some years ago I heard the narrative that "spending was bad because it harms the SoV story". In theory, every payment made with Bitcoin is indeed a market sell order (only against a good and not against fiat or altcoins). But it also implies a merchant was willing to take it as a payment and "buy" the BTC. Even if we take into account payment processors, there's always a tendency for these "payment orders" towards an equilibrium, so we can't say that "spending Bitcoins means the value will go down".
