The reason why you dislike Bitcoin (limited new development; “outdated” tech) is the exact reason why it is valuable. Bitcoin’s monetary policy and consensus rules are impossible to change without near unanimous consent of users, businesses, and miners. As the network grows, achieving that consensus becomes more difficult. The “store of value” narrative makes sense in this context. One can reasonably expect for there to be no change in the amount of Bitcoins that will ever be created.

The lack of fancy smart contracts also limits the possibility of some major bug that could put investor money at risk.

Add in the level of security that is provided by the Bitcoin network and its positive relationship with price for miners, and you have a theoretically perfect form of a digital store of value.

While I understand and appreciate this, that doesn’t mean there were things that I wish were different. Retail will likely be priced out of Bitcoin at some point without the use of a custodian. I don’t think it should cost a fraction of a penny to transact on such a network (on the contrary, fees should discourage any use of block space beyond value transfers), but it is going to suck when it costs $1000 or more to move any BTC. Long-time hodlers will celebrate, but it will likely preclude regular people from using Bitcoin as a decentralized store of value.

I don’t want to miss “the forest for the trees though”. It’s possible that functional and decentralized second and third layer solutions for Bitcoin will materialize. “Necessity is the mother of all invention” and while Bitcoin fees have been creeping they are not yet high enough to discourage the use of Bitcoin for the majority of current users.