Yeah - I get that subtext. The fly in that ointment is that the value of Bitcoin (for any rational definition of 'value', which OP steadfastly refuses to define) is increasing spectacularly. By this criteria alone, it cannot be the Nash Other Alternative.
IOW, in no way does it resemble a duck.
As an aside, this is the very property that has led to the economy singling out Bitcoin.
You don't understand the difference between value and price.
Well, I will grant you one thing. As long as you keep refusing to define 'value', you are free to assert any relation between value and price that you care to. But to make an argument upon undefined terms is simply wasteful.
...
Not to get very involved here, since this is really your discussion.
But, I think OP's definitions would be this:
Price: the financial cost to purchase the financial device. (1,000 USD per 1 BTC)
Value: the perceived utility of the financial device. (bitcoin = gold and not currency)
Stable: the continual increase in price, only in relation to its predictable value. (Stability as Appreciation.)
So, the price could be based on the value, but the value is based on its stability.
(According to the overall Nash theory and OP being discussed.)
(Also, it could be argued that Stability of the device, feeds back into the Price, closing the circle to repeat.)