Bitcoin is not an asset, Bitcoin is money and the definition of money is a currency (ie. a medium of exchange) that can be used as store of value. This means because Bitcoin is acting as a store of value and also because it is in its early stages of adoption, its value keeps growing against fiat making it a suitable investment.
Calling Bitcoin an asset is like ignoring everything else that it offers which are far more useful.
I don't understand why you said that Bitcoin is not an asset but agreed that is is a store of value, my understanding of something that is valuable means that it an asset, I think that the two means the same thing. Firstly Bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency and because of it's potentials to reach ATH in every bull run, people started to hold it as investment, so that they will be getting profits on their capital. If gold and real estate are considered as assets because they are profitable I believe that Bitcoin should also be considered an asset because it is also profitable to hold.
I understand the added advantage that Bitcoin has over other reputable (assets) investments, besides being a store of value like them, it is also a digital currency for payments without the interferences of third parties. It gives it's holders privacy and freedom of sole custody and peer to peer transactions. I think that these qualities qualifies it more as a valuable asset to it's holders. More clarity from you about why Bitcoin shouldn't be called an asset will be highly appreciated.