Some companies and a small number of governments hold bitcoin on their balance sheets as a treasury asset, on the argument that it stores value better than currency. The argument has been tested by several years of price movement.
The case for
Currency loses purchasing power over time by design. An asset with fixed supply should not. That is the theory, and over long enough periods the price history is consistent with it.
The case against
Over any period short enough to matter for corporate planning, it has moved by a third or more in either direction. A treasury asset that can lose a third of its value in a quarter is not serving a treasury function.
Accounting rules in most jurisdictions have required marking losses but not gains, which produced misleading financial statements and has since been partly addressed.
What the experience shows
Companies that bought at favourable points have reported large paper gains. Companies that bought at peaks have reported large paper losses. Neither outcome says much about the asset; both say a great deal about timing.
Governments holding it as reserves are a small and unusual group, and their motivations include signalling as much as finance.
The concentration effect
Large holders affect the market they hold. A company whose value depends substantially on its bitcoin holdings is a leveraged bet on the price, and that has been reflected in how the market treats such companies.
The reasonable view
A legitimate but volatile asset. Appropriate as a small allocation for entities that can tolerate the swings. Not a replacement for cash reserves, and the companies that treated it as one have had an eventful time.