I hate articles like this because they completely miss the point. Simply saying that fiat is not real does not make bitcoin MORE real as a store of value. Imagine that you had your Ethereum stolen by a crooked exchange operator (Cryptsy) and now you need to go before a judge and make your case to the courtroom. You will be repaid back either by the return of your digital property or the cash value of that digital property.
But Cryptsy’s crash occured before Ethereum skyrocketed in value. Now a judge is ordering that the cash value of your Ethers at the time of the exchange’s failure is the basis for a valid claim. This is 35x less than present value.
How do you make the case that any cryptocurrency is digital property and should be returned to you? What you wrote doesn’t make anyone more clearer as to these matters.
Maybe you should rewrite your article to consider civil code for Presumed Measure of Damages for Conversion in real court cases since the rule of law is what establishes the value of stolen cryptocurrency.
Or maybe you should just read my article to know the legal basis by which you can convince a court of law that cryptocurrencies have any value at all. If you want to educate your readers you’ve got to do better than this.