Not saying it will save us all, but it seems like alternate stores-of-value are likely to be, well, valuable.
In fact, for most other stores of value, "dies out in this bear market" isn't even a consideration - the statement is reflective of a (perceived?) higher volatility of the crypto market.
If this is showing anything, it's that crypto currencies are just as vulnerable to monetary policy as other assets.
Like I said, I'm not using recent past performance to try to make predictions. I'm more considering first principles et al.
If you want to make the case that cryptocurrencies deserve to be judged by something other than the absolute clusterfuck they have been so far, you have to make some sort of argument, preferably one with significant data. Otherwise, I think we're in the territory of "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".
Bitcoin was made because of the recession and how poorly interconnected global economies were performing. It was supposed to be currency separated from politics/regional crisis.