None of them remove middlemen or counter party risk, therefore have 0 fundamentals.  Or to put it differently, whether you like or dislike him, Martin Armstrong defines metals as being a hedge against government.  Something that doesn't remove middlemen is obviously not a hedge against government, because as I stated before, transactions are not blinded and the govt can just walk into the mining buildings and claim anyone who doesn't worship them is a terrorist and has their transactions blocked.  

Entities like the G20 will obviously form such policies.  This makes it a permissioned ledger or tyranny by default.  What is bitcoin a hedge against?  NOTHING.  It operates on the govt's infrastructure and it costs virtually nothing to run a police state in the digital world like when Iran supposedly shut off access to Telegram recently.  On the other hand, the cost to run a police state covering the physical planet is almost infinite orders of magnitude higher, and thus not possible.