I think there is at least a nugget of truth in this - still:
A characteristic of a successful currency is that it can be used for the purchase of goods and services. While Bitcoin was accepted in five of the five hundred largest online stores in the United States a year ago, the number is now down in three, and probably we will soon be null. The reason is that banks are becoming increasingly skeptical of having anything with digital currencies to do.
Most of the transactions in the Bitcoin market are today between speculators and no payment for the purchase of goods and services in the legal economy.
While the value of crypto currencies has increased a lot, I'm quite disappointed with the adoption of crypto currencies as a means of payment for non-illicit goods and services
(giving myself a humble 1% upvote for increased visibility)
Agreed. BTC is still so immature that people are mostly accumulating it (HODL). If we reach a critical mass of HODLers I assume we will see it be used more as a means of payment for non-illicit goods and services. I have used BTC to by gold and silver (from APMEX), which is the oldest forms of money known to man.
BTC is working fine as a currency inside that crypto space.It could be debated what BTC really is. Is it 'money'? Is it property rights to digital scarcity? Is for example Steem a currency, digital right to digtal scarcity or a preference share (that gives dividends) or perhaps a tribrid of all three? I doubt BTC can be analyzed from a fiat perspective (when will all people by coffee with BTC etc).
The ability to buy coffee using crypto-currencies has been part of the vision from day one - though unfortunately I believe the crypto community has been set back with several years over the schism and disagreements on how to get there (with "bitcoin cash", "lighting network" and "redesigned alt-coins" being the three different directions)