People have been proposing this because they are economically ignorant.
There is no such thing as intrinsic value. Currencies only have value if people use them, so there is no way for Bitcoin to have behave as a store of value in the long term except as a direct consequence of its use as a medium of exchange.
Before you start talking about gold - no, it won't work that way.
Prior to central banks, gold behaved as a store of value because it was used as a medium of exchange.
After central banks, gold behaved as a store of value because of taxation.
Bitcoin could never survive as a high-fee settlement currency because high fees would arise due to block size rationing, not because transactions should naturally cost that much for technical reasons. Bitcoin would lose out to a competing currency with less/no rationing that would be less expensive to use for settlements.
High transaction rates on the main chain are the only way for Bitcoin to survive. Yes, getting there is a difficult technical problem to solve. Deal with it.
Where did you get the idea of intrinsic value? I can't find it in my comments.
I don't agree with your comments. Bitcoin will be used as a medium-of-exchange, only, by proxy, through a BTC-pegged unit on a more efficient sidechain. I know you will say money doesn't require backing but in the case of Bitcoin it does not matter.
On the contrary, I find the comparison to gold to be excellent. I know we all hate fiat for what it has become but the fiat technology was a fantastic idea and for a moment a great advancement for our society. It came out of necessity for a more transportable and convenient mean of exchange. Much like gold, Bitcoin's transportation property suffers from some shortcomings : confirmation time & transparency.
On the other hand, unlike gold-backing Bitcoin-backing is fundamentally different in that there is no counterparty risks. The pegging can not be abused by the backers. For this reason Bitcoin is the perfect reserve currency.
Bitcoin could never survive as a high-fee settlement currency because high fees would arise due to block size rationing, not because transactions should naturally cost that much for technical reasons. Bitcoin would lose out to a competing currency with less/no rationing that would be less expensive to use for settlements.
High transaction rates on the main chain are the only way for Bitcoin to survive. Yes, getting there is a difficult technical problem to solve. Deal with it.
High-fee? This is not what I am suggesting, more like high-volume. Block size rationing are a whole different debate.