Wealth is created primarily from productivity gains. Bitcoin generates very little in the way of productivity gains. Services built on top of blockchain or similar tech, will be where most of the wealth will be generated, because those services / products will or might spur productivity gains.
And I would say that the proper comparison would be to a company during the .Com bust.
Skyrocketed in value from hundreds of dollars in the mid-late 90's to tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars today?
Not sure that's the point you were trying to make though :)
Businesses are more willing to spend to have "their" domain name, perhaps, but the overall value of a "hot" domain name seems lower.
I remember at one point, I bought out all the remaining 5 number .com names (like 78542.com). Must have been close to 400.
I let them all expire since they were worthless a year later.
Fast forward to 2015 and they're all selling for a minimum of $200+.
*https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-confirmation-time?timespa...
It's a form of survivor bias because you never see or think about the technically-complex failures, or "not-successes", like the Tamagatchi, Laser disc, WebTV, Webvan, etc. I mean, how come none of it's proponents compare Bitcoin to the Segway? Sure, you can say we have hoverboards now but those are not Segway, the same way Eth and Monero are not Bitcoin.
In the same way, Eth and Monero are further iterations of Bitcoin.
Bitcoin, Eth, and Monero are all implementations of blockchain. Bitcoin is technically inferior to Eth, Monero, even Dogecoin, but that doesn't stop GP and others from comparing it to the internet's success in saying that Bitcoin is destined for similar success.
Blockchain size and confirmation times are two entirely different things.
The length of the chain can affect processing power and bandwidth, as each block contains all previous blocks.