You may be right, but I don't think so. There's something that you are missing: Network effects. With any network, each new user improves the usefulness (and therefore the value) of the network exponentially, and this is known as the network effect. It's so well known and well documented that we've given it a name--"Metcalf's Law".
There's a corollary to Metcalf's Law that says that, due to such network effects, any new network seeking to displace an old one must be at least ten times better. Otherwise it can never overcome the incumbent network's advantage. Facebook is an example. You and I could start a new social media site tomorrow but, unless its somehow 10 times better than Facebook (as Steem might be), nobody is going to adopt it.
Blockchains are simply special types of networks that can do things once considered impossible under the rules of computer science--they can achieve distributed consensus. Distributed consensus has innumerable potential applications, many of which can't be realized until these blockchains can handle more bandwidth (become scalable).
A third corollary is that once the exponential adoption of a network kicks in, it rarely ends until it either saturates the marketplace or something ten times better comes along to displace it. Exponential adoption of technology doesn't just suddenly stop. I challenge you to find instances where it has.
The exponential adoption of Bitcoin began in early Jan 2009. So, the network has been around for nearly nine years now, and its network effects have only accelerated each year along the way (through boom and bust cycles). While price has been votalie, adoption has been comparatively consistent and trending upward exponentially. Ethereum, though much younger, has shown the same pattern. Steem, though much younger than Ethereum, has likewise demonstrated the same pattern (though less clearly since its so new).
In short, I think you are wrong to think of blockchains as currencies and to draw your conclusions about them by applying the tools of economics. Blockchains are a revolutionary information technology and, as such, should be measured and gauged by methods traditionally applied to tech . Viewed that way, its hard to see how, absent some technical calamity or the arrival of something ten times better, bitcoin and certain other cryptocurrencies don't continue their exponential adoption.
That's all good fundamental information but "regretfully" a real market many times does not price things based on fundamentals. I only track "the future of things" at ANY given time based on what investor/trader sentiment is saying at any given time. Since it is actually people who drive price it is more important to understand what they are saying about the price of ANY commodity/product/service than the things you mention. Right now it is my deepest opinion that you guys have it wrong...and "maybe" WAY wrong. Follow my blog if you want to find out what "the market" is saying about bitcoin at any given time. And make no mistake about it. As bitcoin goes...so will the rest of the cyrptos altho I'm sure there will be one or two that pop up periodically that will triple in value in a week becuase the crypto lemmings think it's the next BIG thing. That's the way it 'actually" works.