I very much agree with you we may end up with more chains being a store-of-value. If BTC will keep that value for the next decades to come, there is simply not enough BTC around to hold all the money people and companies want to store in a safe. But I sometimes think BTC will not survive two or three decades. Sure, BTC will be there, but after it'll hit some ATH in 1, 2 3 years from now, slowly its value will be lost. Its simply too expensive to transact, and too slow for anything else than store-of-value. Lightning network and all should make this chain faster, but they don't have the right marketing at their sides. Other chains will have the benefit over BTC wrt fast and may also inexpensive transaction costs.

Regarding transaction costs and your statement, nobody seems to want to sell LEO. Don't you think the recent successes of LEO (an increase of token value) and the low liquidity at LeoDEX and the large transaction costs when swapping at the LEO/ETH pool combined result in people buying LEO and holding on to it, for now?

Sure, I follow what you are saying, and maybe LEO can become a store of value, who knows. Interestingly, when LEO does become a store-of-value, BTC will be out of the game completely {LOL}. Since the reason why BTC is store-of-value because it is (or at least almost everybody thinks so) the safest chain around. This can't be said about HIVE and with HIVE about LEO. So, when HIVE and LEO become a store-of-value, the market-determined level of safety of BTC chain is not required to be a store-of-value.

Posted Using LeoFinance ^Beta