I think you sold too early. I've written a blog on what (in my non-professional opinion, not financial advice, etc.) drives the Bitcoin price. I also believe that the only way for Bitcoin to survive is for it to be much more expensive.
Why? What evidence do you have that a high hash rate causes high value?
I would argue that the hash rate follows value, rather than the other way round. A low hash rate and high value makes mining is more profitable, which results in more miners joining, raising the hash rate. Thus the hash rate adjusts to reach an equilibrium against the BTC to electricity exchange rate.
I do actually say that in the article, in almost those same words.
My (perhaps not very well articulated) point was that regardless of what follows what, the hash rate, or the amount of work, in terms of energy expended is by far greatest of all other crypto coins, especially considering the whole blockchain going back to beginning, which means to 51% attack Bitcoin is harder than anything else right now.
For this reason, if I wanted to park my money in a crypto currency, I'd probably choose Bitcoin as the safest, hardest reinforced as far as proof-of-work goes.
Of course there are other factors at play here, but it seems like amount of proof-of-work, or the difficulty, is an important factor in a crypto currency preciousness.
That doesn't mean that next year it should be worth double of what it is now. One would need a better index of miner capital costs and their increases to really track but my napkin says miner required value now is around ~$1200 (based on the value pump that happend just prior to the previous halving)