What happens, in short, when Bitcoin ventures outside of its tight community of enthusiastic anarcho-libertarians--who desperately want Bitcoin to succeed for geopolitical reasons--and it is instead evaluated, coldly, like any other investment by people who don't have that political agenda?
I like the challenge of a contrarian debate. Consider this, Bitcoin naturally acts as a hedge against existing currencies and asset classes. As centralised currency systems rise and fall (periods of recessions) which economists agree happens in 8-12 year cycles, hedges become important. Protecting against a loss in financial value is not a view thats constrained to a group of as you put 'enthusiastic anarcho-libertarians', its a bi-partisan or nonpartisan (universal) desire that is not constrained by geographical boundaries.
In this scenario, the outcome is universally bullish for Bitcoin as an alternative asset class.
Sure, but assets to hedge against currency losses have been around for hundreds of years (commodities, metals, real estate, equities, etc. etc.).
This is exactly what I was trying to say in the OP: now that Bitcoin is "just another investment", it's going to be evaluated along side all of the others, and it's going to need a story about why it's uniquely positioned to
outperform other investment instruments that do the same thing. If Bitcoin doesn't do that, it's going to take on a bad reputation.