You should absolutely come back in a few years and discuss it with me. I'm entirely prepared to be wrong.
I can see an end-state in which Bitcoins reach a tipping point that they would become a default for transactions. That would give them a basis for value, the total value of all the world's transactions divided by the total base if Bitcoins (yadda yadda velocity of money and other hand-wavey stuff; I'm not doing the math here since that's not the point).
I consider that unlikely for a number of reasons. Some are technical (the weight of Bitcoin is so high that most people end up using an online provider, which is no easier than just using any other spending app) and some economic/political (if blockchain really works for currency, a government could easily set one up by fiat without rewarding speculators in any existing cryptocurrency).
While that end-state could happen, a stablecoin gets there faster. People could buy and use a stablecoin today, without making every transaction a speculation. Of all the cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin attracts the most attention, and is most driven by speculation rather than any kind of store of value. While Bitcoin's notoriety could be the reason it becomes the one that stands out, I believe that it's more likely to be a different one (most likely a stablecoin, probably backed by a government).
So there, I explained my reasoning. It could be wrong, and if so, it will hopefully be clear where. There will be no reason for me to either feign ignorance or double down: I'd be more interested in learning the lesson of what I missed than defending my ego. It costs nothing to my ego to be wrong, only in failing to learn.
I collect them like Pokemon. It's been nearly a decade now and there's certainly many to look back on.
From experience people either double down or feign ignorance years later, which path will this one take?