Its a semantic point in a sense but its also one of re-solution. We can understand that with the introduction of local versus non-local bounds (ie perspective) something can have a non-locally derived value.
This could be viewed as “intrinsic” value in the sense of the above debate in that it would set a local floor for the value money medium even if there was no local non-monetary usefulness for it.
This might not be a full argument for a floor for the globally held market valuation of bitcoin, however, even if we subscribe to the need for a non-monetary based floor for a reputable money medium it suggests, that a state can’t significantly affect the locally held market valuation of bitcoin by unilaterally banning it-the floor is set non-locally!~The Re-solution of the Intrinsic Value(s) of Money Mediums
Here I’d like to extend the observation above thinking about the possibility of events such as the recent news that India might put some severe restriction on the use of bitcoin:
India to propose cryptocurrency ban, penalising miners, traders — source
There is a new phenomenon here to observe that is interesting since money hasn’t really said to have been observed to exist outside of either a medium with an alternative usefulness or government decree (this is not necessarily the author’s opinion): a commodity with a synthetic or non-local value in which the government means to decree valueless and useless for its currency region.
From the global sense you have the established exchange price between bitcoin and the Indian rupee but the local “laws” of observation suggest that bitcoin is not actually worth that “abroad” value.
Then somewhere in there is an observation, that as the government laws hold strong, Gresham's law should become relevant not because of the decree on the value of the governments fiat money but because of the attempt to denounce the adversarial currency to a lesser market valuation that can be found externally.
