But you're not the only person in the world, so I don't see how this is an accurate portrayal at all. To _you_ it's a value store. To electronics companies it's a consumable used in manufacturing. Same to a jeweler, and to a jewelry consumer it's desired.
Crypto has exactly zero real world utility or inherent value. You, Joe Schmoe, do not by yourself and your own desires dictate what does and does not have inherent value.
Abstract mediums of exchange/wealth storage usually decrease in real world utility the more abstracted they become. But they are also more "advanced" so to speak, or useful for modern purposes.
Maybe that's not put very well. Look at it like this.
Primitive civilizations (some of which still exist today) may store their wealth in something like cattle. Often exactly cattle in fact. Obvious real world utility. But cumbersome to trade, can't grow the economy fast, lots of drawbacks and it limit how complex the culture can become.
As civilization gets more complex it moves on to other mediums. Next might be useful metals (tin, bronze, iron). Less immediate use than cattle, slightly more abstracted. Then maybe precious metals or stones, less practical use then the previous stage, even more abstracted. But easier to move around, trade, store and calculate with. Then currency, even more abstracted and even less practical use. Then digital currency in the form IOUs and ledger balances which is essentially what we have now. 0 practical use. Essential for any modern economy.
Point being, "real world use" has nothing to do with value as a currency, a store of wealth or an economic unit in this time and place. The worth is abstracted functionality. And it's entirely possible, in fact even likely in my opinion that blockchains are an evolution along these lines, a next step in abstracting units of trade and ledgers of wealth.
I think the gold comparison is quite close.