I would be interested in learning why you feel that is the most logical conclusion. Personally, lack of liquidity, nicely demonstrated now, would lead me to conclude that it is quiet bad at storing value. I would not want to store my savings in a commodity where trying to get them out is likely to cause a reduction in its value regardless of how small they are Currently, I seem to be watching a whole lot of panic sellers stuck in a bottleneck, not a good look for savings or investments. Whereas when it comes to spending, I can send payments immediately and without a middle man to take some of it. Works equally clean when i receive it. That to me is a brilliant medium of exchange (or at least a good iteration towards one) and with all the recent publicity, one that has the potential to be widely accepted 


You don't need a better comparison, "market cycle" is exactly what happened because people are trying to trade bitcoins the same way they would trade any other commodity in the markets. That is probably also why the new investors were attracted to Mt. Gox, the place looks and works like any other market they have been trading in. One of the reasons why I think this crash has been a blessing; it has the potential to make people understand bitcoin and its possibilities rather than taking the simplistic approach of simply treating it like any other commodity. But, there is also the possibility that the cooperators will move on if the currency stays unsuitable for exchange due to excessive volatility created by the competitors. If that were to occur, It would be interesting to see how the competitors would prop up the value of a currency you can't buy anything with