Much of the debate surrounding bitcoin's scaling problem seems to stem from two different visions of what bitcoin should be right now: a store of value or a peer-to-peer digital cash system. Both sides agree that in the long run both of these properties should be met, but the question is: Will bitcoin hold value even if TX throughput does not scale soon or do we risk losing our first mover advantage if bitcoin is not able to fulfil its promises as a peer-to-peer cash system soon.
I would love to hear some arguments from both sides of this debate
This is a good question and debate. The more liquidity we see across the entire available coins the lower price we'll see, and certainly more stable. The more people hodl, the more the price will rise.
I realize that throughput constraints may turn some folks off, it will lower liquidity. But that doesn't mean it will lower the value of bitcoin. A decrease in value will only come when there are more sellers than buyers, literally. So if liquidity becomes tough, but people still see "store of value" value in bitcoin we'll continue to see the price rise over the long term.
The shorter term fluctuations will always occur and are indicative of direct buying an selling moves. We see a dip after the holidays, perhaps people are taking earnings in bitcoin to replinsh their fiat reserves or simply because there has been a run up.
The greatest challenge in trying to find causation in bitcoin price movements is doing so with social or business events...the currency is so global that it's hard to attribute one country's actions to the movement of the price of bitcoin.