Let's say you live in Venezuela. What do you dump for shopping? Local fiat that is being printed like no tomorrow, or BTC that will increase in value (compared to local fiat)?
At Venezuela btc has much higher store of value characteristics than a shopping currency.
I'm not sure I understand your objection.
Are you telling me that it's smart for Venezuela stores to accept bitcoin, because no one uses it, or that it's stupid for stores to accept bitcoin, because no one uses it?
Please be specific.
You have a situation with rampant inflation in your local currency.
You can "spend" dollars as well (if you have them) for shopping, but that would not be wise (for you as a spender) but it would be very good for the shop. It's the same for BTC.
So a store can "accept" anything that is better than Venezuelan currency (let's say you have a shop and you put a sign on it "Now you can buy your groceries with gold, silver, USD and BTC") but the store owner can only wish a client would spend such, instead of using local currency.
The "non-use" of hard assets and currencies for buying stuff in an inflationary economy is simultaneously a use for storing value. You can't have both at the same time.
So to answer your question: If you are a store and you accept bitcoin its smart for you (since you will take the BTCs of the client) but dumb for the BTC-holder to spend it. He should spend local fiat that will go down in rates in like ...the next day or week. This is what must be dumped (the fastest the better).