I start this thread in hope of lining up our stands in this question. I think if we communicate things in similar fashion our message has a better chance to go through. On the other hand if half the community says ADA is a currency while the other half says it isn’t that can cause confusion and damage our credibility. Of course I don’t want to damage anyone’s right to a free opinion, I just think some clarification and dialog may help in this regard or at least couldn’t hurt.
My personal opinion is that ADA is a currency by utility or design - because it’s not a stock and not a commodity -, despite the fact it’s not a particularly effective one yet. Price instability makes it inconvenient and disadvantageous to use it as a currency right now, but if volatility would lower this situation could change dramatically.
I think adoption is the key of understanding price behavior, but it effects volatility in a rather strange if not illogical way. A wave of new adopters increases volatility for a while, but then, after the ripple effect decays volatility falls to a lower level than before the tide. In my opinion this is because volatility is the result of low liquidity and high speculation rate. I don’t think that fixed supply is the primary cause of high volatility, but it certainly adds to it through low liquidity. As adoption level raises liquidity of the markets will raise while the proportion of speculative actors will lower. Yet a new level of adoption triggers this low liquidity speculative market. I hope it makes sense.
So, long story sort I expect ADA to be more and more effective as a currency, and consequently more and more people will use it as such.
My speculations aside my opinion is that at the end of the day currency is something that people use as such.