It's a perfectly sensible statement. Bitcoin provides value in the form of moving money from A to B, which is a service people are happy to pay some amount for, and (arguably) being a store of value. Bitcoin's value, derived from its utility, is quantifiable, most easily by comparison to other items that provide the same utility.

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.