I don't disagree much with this, except that you say that what I wrote is not really correct.

For bitcoin there is a disconnect, because there is no intrinsic value.
This is a pet peeve of mine. The term "intrinsic value" should not be used at all as it sets people to arguing all over again about stuff that's already been settled and explained to death a thousand times.
People use it in a colloquial sense, like Peter Schiff does, for market value. But if market value is meant, then market value should be used. But when people use "intrinsic value," then suddenly you get all these arguments that go off in every direction talking about why we value everything from warm breezes to pizzas to music to hammers. It's really annoying because it's completely unnecessary. The Austrian understanding that economic value is subjective does away with the necessity to delve into the metaphysical implications of every kind of "value" one can imagine and discuss.