Regarding the Bitcoin vs Ethereum narrative
Allocating capital in Bitcoin but not Ethereum is a bet that the planned roadmap for Ethereum will not be implemented successfully and / or its economic properties will not work as designed once the final phase of ETH 2.0 goes live. The combination of PoS, sharding and EIP-1559 will allow a monetary policy that can sustain the system with zero emission, possibly negative. Detailed explanations of how this is possible have been documented through numerous interviews and blogs with developers and experts. We also need to keep in mind that even if the issuance is above zero, the returns from the stake in Ether must be accounted for to compare the long-term holding value proposition to something like Bitcoin.
Addressing the claim that Ether is not money
The narrative that Ether is not money because the Ethereum protocol is not designed to function exclusively as money is similar to saying that the Internet is not a good email system because it is not designed exclusively to transmit emails. This kind of narrative attempts to narrow the definition of money by suggesting that its underlying protocol shouldn't have functionality that extends beyond the conventional way we think of it. This is a future where monetary, The Ethereum protocol is designed to do many wonderful things, but it costs money to operate the network and that cost must be covered with something of value that can be easily settled or exchanged for other things of value ... also known as money. The idea that ether is more like oil than gold / money just because the price metric for calculations is called "gas" falls apart under scrutiny.
Saying that Ether is not money is like saying that the sky is not blue.
