That’s not a tacit assumption, but one that have been observed in a number of settings. Are you then suggesting that Bitcoin have an instrinsic value onto it’s own? Like Gold? That, dear Juice, seems like very tacit assumption. I actually use Macro Economical analytics to determine price moves, which has been very succesful, even on 3–6–12 month time-frames. As part of my model, I employ Game theory, and in extension, of of my thoughts as to why Bitcoin exhibits Safe Haven properties, a la Ideal Money theory by John Nash. In Nash’s lectures, he spoke of utility; where it is in common use and good. I use terms such as fungibility and liquidity. Utility and liquidity decreases if less people use it. It seems like you are unfamiliar with the Network Effect. For that very reason, I’ll quote Wikipedia on that matter (so you can read it from a consensus, rather than me). “ Stock exchanges and derivatives exchanges feature a network effect. Market liquidity is a major determinant of transaction cost in the sale or purchase of a security, as a bid-ask spread exists between the price at which a purchase can be done versus the price at which the sale of the same security can be done. As the number of buyers and sellers on an exchange increases, liquidity increases, and transaction costs decrease. This then attracts a larger number of buyers and sellers to the exchange.” Furthermore, as Nash pointed out to utility as a key factor; and seems like you are a proponent of Nash; another great mind, Reed, states that : [E]ven Metcalfe’s law understates the value created by a group-forming network [GFN] as it grows. Let’s say you have a GFN with n members. If you add up all the potential two-person groups, three-person groups, and so on that those members could form, the number of possible groups equals 2n. So the value of a GFN increases exponentially, in proportion to 2n. I call that Reed’s Law. And its implications are profound.”. In other words, there is a (positive) exponential correlation to the number of users and it’s utility, and hence worth and value. Value, however, is not price.