More people say store of value now than ever before, but my point about that would be the same. An asset needs to have a reliably predictable and steady value to be a store of value. Bitcoin I wouldn't say fits due to its extreme volatility.
I slightly disagree. An asset needs to have a value that doesn't go down drastically in the long term to be used as a store of value. If the value goes up in the long-term, then it is not an issue. And I don't think that stability and predictability needs to be there. If that is the case, then even gold can't be termed as a store of value. Because during the 2011-16 period, gold prices went down by 40%. If you talk about US treasury bonds, then in fiat terms the value is stable. But the returns are only around 1.1%-1.2% per year, while the current inflation rate is in the 5%-6% range.
"An asset needs to have a value that doesn't go down drastically in the long term to be used as a store of value." If that's your criteria, there's no possibly way you can view bitcoin as a better store of value than the dollar. The dollar depreciates very slowly and rather predictably. Bitcoin depreciates very rapidly and without any predictability whatsoever. There's no possible comparison between bitcoin and the USD in terms of what is a better store of value, it's unequivocally the USD.