Per-transaction basis is completely meaningless math. Both systems can be scaled as I said. The point is that it's more expensive to run the US dollar system than Bitcoin.
But if you find that Bitcoin is a digital, permissionless, borderless, uncensorable store of value, a better gold than gold, then it doesn't need millions of transactions per second.
Bitcoin is just fine as the most secure settlement layer and long-term store of value for large, infrequent and expensive transactions.
Fiat money isn't going anywhere, Visa doesn't need to be replaced, and Bitcoin doesn't need to pay for your coffee to be useful. It can do what it does best, coexisting with fiat systems and other cryptocurrencies.
It's not, because its inability to scale means folks are pushed onto L2 which has none of the guarantees you mention.
As Bitcoin's use as a store of value increases and transaction throughput remains constant, transactions will be larger, less frequent and more expensive.
I won't get pushed out onto L2 just like I'm not pushed to liquidate real estate or art collections. I don't transact in long-term stores of value more than once every few years, and then I expect the transaction will be large, slow and expensive.
It is a strawman to say that Bitcoin can only be useful if it replaces all traditional financial instruments.
As far as scaling Bitcoin goes: prove it. It’s been a decade and it still does 4tps.
Again, that’s not an argument for Bitcoin, just so we’re clear. This is an argument for visa instead.
Sure. The Lightning Network already exists, is working and in use, and can in principle do essentially unlimited TPS.
Bitcoin doesn't need to scale to millions of TPS to be successful (since payments and microtransactions aren't its only use case), but it so happens that it can do that through second layer technologies.