In my opinion, using Bitcoin solely as an investment product, making it more of a speculative instrument than a store of value, has harmed the concept of Bitcoin as defined by the Satoshi Protocol more than it has helped it spread. With the increasing difficulty of mining, which has become a costly industry, and the rise of alternative currencies, the use of Bitcoin as a payment system has declined, and its use has been limited to a few specific tasks. Without overcoming some obstacles, bitcoin may remain a mere investment asset far from becoming the practical everyday currency that satoshi has initially envisioned.
I would not see it that negatively. If Bitcoin had any degree of success and adoption as P2P cash, it would have been an excellent investment in its early years. Thus, to a certain degree, it was inevitable that people would buy Bitcoins to benefit from future price price increases, and even to "get rich". The only possible problem would have been a competing system (like Ripple, where the conceptual stage was older than Bitcoin) taking the lead, leaving Bitcoin behind. But that problem has probably been solved, as even Ethereum's flippening dreams seem to be a thing of the past.
IMO it's the exaggeration of the investment/digital gold concept that is doing some harm currently, but it's a relatively new phenomenon (since COVID perhaps). And the harm is imo perfectly reversible.
My take on it is that very likely Bitcoin could evolve naturally into a P2P cash again if volatility keeps lowering like now, because eventually the risk to hold it with the intention of spending will be low enough for people in many countries considering it an alternative to a bank account -- a slightly more risky one but also with the option to grow. But an exaggerated rat race for strategic reserves, for example, would delay this process, as volatility would probably increase again to pre 2020 levels.