what if blockchain is the main monetary asset, what would happen? Part-I

What would it mean if cryptocurrencies thrive in a week when bitcoin is making records with a market value reaching a trillion dollars? Because bitcoins are not particularly helpful today, the only reason they are worth a trillion dollars is the anticipation of success.
Cryptocurrencies must provide some meaningful function if they are to support their high worth; otherwise, keeping bitcoin is a minority activity that does not justify the present $51,000 price. But what is the valued service that is driving bitcoin's success?
To the great majority of bitcoin investors, success implies that the price of the cryptocurrency continues to grow. But if that's all there is to it, eventually a young child will shout, "the Emperor has no clothes," and the price will plummet.
Bitcoin supporters are unsure what success entails beyond growing prices; they appear to prefer arguments cloaked in mysticism over plain economic reasoning. The most crucial success requirement is that cryptocurrencies be utilized in business transactions, such as Tesla adopting bitcoin today. All additional value propositions follow from this, such as their usage in payment systems (Fatás and Weder di Mauro 2018) or their safe-haven function (Cheema et al. 2020).
In other words, the value proposition for bitcoin is that it will either completely or partially replace fiat money, such as the dollar, euro, yuan, and others. As I explain further below, I believe it is unavoidable that it will be 'either, or' - either full displacement or no displacement, total success or failure. And, as I stated three years ago on Vox (Danielsson 2018), I don't believe cryptocurrencies make sense. So, how do bitcoins compare to fiat currency? The US dollar is the US government's debt obligation. The worth of the US dollar for the bearer is the real products that money can buy.
Despite the fact that bitcoin contains the term "coin" and cryptocurrencies contain the word "currency," they are not money in the traditional sense. Simply explaining bitcoin to a layperson reveals that cryptocurrencies are not money in the manner that most people, including expert economists, think of money. The issue of comparing bitcoin to money is hampered further by the fact that there is no universal definition of money. Should bitcoin be likened to central bank paper money and reserves, M0, or on-demand money, M1? Will bitcoin then have the same velocity as today's money?