You just started ur sentence with the phrase “game-theoretically” and then asserted “should”. That’s not game theory and thats not how logic and reason work.
This analysis provides a game-theoretic approach to bitcoin’s adoption as money and its appropriate final valuation. Bitcoin’s properties make it the leading candidate to serve as a generally agreed upon unit of relative wealth, reflecting the totality of all other economic utility.
Ur just stating that the conclusion you started with is true. Why is it “game-theoretic”? Its the opposite of what Nash’s proposal (and Hayek’s) conclude based on John Nash’s game theory and economic philosophy on the subject. How did that happen?