You consume a BTC by using/trading it. You consume gold or maple syrup by using/trading it. Just because the uses are a little different doesn't mean it's incompatible with the definition of commodity. If I started using gold in a nonsensical way you wouldn't start saying "oh now it's a security", would you?
So you consume bitcoin the same way a central bank consumes gold: by sitting on it, selling it when you need to, or buying more in times of expected turmoil.
Bitcoin is far younger than gold (12 years vs thousands), so its obviously more volatile.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/299609/gold-demand-by-in...
Consume:
- eat, drink, or ingest (food or drink).
- buy (goods or services).
- use up (a resource).
- (especially of a fire) completely destroy.
- (of a feeling) absorb all of the attention and energy of (someone).
And again, that is by design of both the instruments themselves and the massive PR campaigns/grifts around them.
The whole trick is attempting to position these things as “the half of the definition of commodity that means this has intrinsic value but not the other half of the definition which says it’s a raw input,” or “the half of the definition of a security that means You Can Make Money, but not the other half that says I can be regulated as someone selling a You Can Make Money instrument.”