Would be interesting to see distributions compared. I imagine it to be similar everywhere: most stuff is owned by not that many people. Only difference: in Bitcoin, they might be different people, thus adding to a better distribution overall.
Also I do not consider ETFs safe at all. If you dislike Bitcoin (which is totally fine), maybe buy gold or land, since ETF composition might change, land and gold might not.
ETF and land represent real production value. Land most directly of course, and that's about the most stable as you can get: even if literally the entire economy collapsed, at least you still have land you can farm.
ETFs are a bit indirect; to be more direct, you'd have to buy shares of the individual companies represented in them, but for most people that's a lot of work. ETFs get you the same thing. Their composition might change, but only slowly and tied to a whole bunch of criteria. And in the end, they do represent the economic value of real companies that produce things.
My thesis remains, that "real production value" does not exist, or at least is dwarfed by people "electing" a store of value. Like Tesla, gold or land.
Bitcoin seems to me uniquely suited to become the next store of value elected by the most.
If it does, even land might lose value compared to it.
Volatility might lessen over time, in any case is only a real problem if there is a long-term down trend. Else, just DCA in and out.
Of course, this is all hypothetical, no guarantees.
I strongly doubt that. It's too impractical. Literally the only thing that gives it value is the trust of people, and that's a fickle thing.
It might have gotten big as an online payment system if it could scale sufficiently for that, but it turns out it can't; payments are too slow and expensive. With that gone, blind trust in a system that has proven to be very volatile and has had a lot of events where a lot of people lost access to their bitcoins, does not seem very likely.