People mistakenly believe that the two option you have are valuable or zero. Instead it is a scale from positive to negative value.
For example a legislation to have bitcoin "pay for" the environment damage could lead to it having a negative value.
Working with and spending effort on a coin that goes to zero is a loss of productivity and opportunity of not doing something useful. Again the real cost is non-zero.
I'll bite. So basically, owner would have to pay more than they would get to sell their Bitcoin? I'm sure nobody would do that, so the price is effectively capped at zero and can't go lower.
Lol this is beyond absurd.
Bitcoin has a cost, as well. The undercover economist might tell you that it fails to charge for an externality, namely its climate impact.
It's entirely possible that, were that exernality priced in, the cost to operate bitcoin might exceed the value it provides relative to other providers, which would give it net negative value.
In the case where the costs are larger than the value produced, but are not paid by the bitcoin system (external, you might say), then it would still have net negative value, but continue to operate.