Bitcoin had all those things - not that long ago. You need volume to ensure stability, not utility.
Wow you've drunk some serious kool-aid there.
You need both. A huge volume of nothing is still nothing.
The "you need volume for stability" argument is what pro-bitcoin people used to say when Bitcoin could actually be used as a currency. Many people would say "Bitcoin isn't a legit currency because it's so volatile", and we would say "No, that's only because there isn't enough Bitcoins out there yet compared to USD for example". This was a valid argument and used to be my go-to-comment for convincing people. But that's only when Bitcoin can be used for something.
Now Bitcoin is like a pet rock, it's scarce, but very risky because the value that comes from the scarcity is based on people's perception only and not based on utility.
My point was that if the value is based only on perception (speculative value), this is very susceptible to manipulation.
I can't believe people actually believe just because something is scarce it's automatically valuable.
Mere utility is not enough, you need huge volume of such utility to make it stable.
I never said mere utility is enough. I clearly said "You need both", in response to parent saying it's not about utility but only about volume. So in summary I agree with your comment.