...this is not a paradox...
It seems you now agree the argument I used to explain the paradox wasn't "begging the question."
The statement that's a paradox is the one I labelled "Paradox: if you remove the speculative component from bitcoin's price, its value increases."
The definition of a paradox is "a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true."
The apparent contradiction is the idea that the speculative component is actually negative; i.e., if you remove it the value would increase. Yet this might be true.
I think perhaps you think this shows that the price must increase. It doesn't. It just shows that at our current level of bitcoin adoption the price probably can't remain constant (and non-zero). It holds in the case of lambcoins too--the value quickly plummets!
Of course "but the value would increase due to its useful properties..." is begging the question.
You posit that the value would increase, and that's the same thing you find paradoxical. Come on.
When you quote the definition of "paradox" (it's ok to admit you're quoting wikip, kids won't laugh), you skip the crucial bit:
"Most logical paradoxes are known to be invalid arguments but are still valuable in promoting critical thinking." In other words, older kids won't see a paradox where you would.
Your Lambcoin valuation is also sloppy, unless you're suggesting Lambcoin's value can plummet indefinitely (as in "into negative numbers").
As Lambcoin's creator, I can tell you that its value is currently quite stable at zero, and is unlikely to go any lower without creating anti-coin.