Can't agree with the OP's critique of bitcoin. Mass adoption in the real world has never been a driver of bitcoin's price. My reading of the situation is that bitcoin is a scarcity story, rather than a real world utility story.
Think of pink diamonds. They're worth millions of dollars per carat because they're rare. If they were priced for real world utility, they'd be priced like industrial diamonds, which are used for cutting and are worth something like 30 cents per carat. Rarity and scarcity are the sole drivers behind the enormous price tag behind pink diamonds.
Bitcoin to me is like a pink diamond, except that it's like a pink diamond which is usually permanently destroyed when its owner dies (due to the private key not being disclosed to anyone else, and the fact that bitcoins in an address are effectively permanently lost if a private key is lost). So scarce, like pink diamonds, but also potentially getting scarcer over time due to lost/destroyed coins.
One can invest in a coin based on real world utility (akin to industrial diamonds)with little to separate between competing coins (e.g. Dash, litecoin, bitcoin cash can all do fast and cheap transactions) or one can invest in a scarce, highly sought after coin with an attractive, unique selling point - unparalleled security due to massive hash power and decentralisation. I know how the latter story can drive prices into the stratosphere, but it's less clear to me how the former will also do the same.
