I don't think that Bitcoin is suitable for lending. A profit seeking company borrowing Bitcoin would not just getting credit, it would be taking a short position in Bitcoin. Taking a short position in an asset like Bitcoin is an extremely risky transaction.
So the only reasons to hodl Bitcoin is a hedge for uncertainity, I agree, or a bet on the market increasingly valuing its low costs of carry qualities. I tend to think it is mainly the latter by a huge difference. I admit, however, that due to the current context of high public indebtness the uncertainity factor is increasingly relevant.
Regarding the focal point, as I see it, gold is not that different from Bitcoin because what is gold or not depends on our definition of gold, and not so much on nature. The cuasility is always "need -> economic good"
The market demands scarce good to play the role of Mo(I)E and/or money, that's why gold was selected and that's why monetary gold was defined in a very constrained way (99% pure gold).
So as long as the different alternatives are not fungible and the market can clearly differentiate the units from different sets, I think that the market will reject all units that go against what the market demands (fixed supply).
As of todays state of technology, blocksize and anonimity are closely linked to the fixed nature of the supply, because in order to be completely sure about the supply anyone should be able to fully verify it with full certainity (anonimity may preclude this) and at a very low cost, without needing to incur in the cost of trusting a third party. In 2009 we already had currencies that relied on 3rd parties, that's nothing new.
I agree that other crypto with significant new features could improve on BTC utility, but if that is possible, then it is also possible to expect BTC implementing those features (on-chain or L2), given that they are useful for real.
In any case, my point is that what gives value to Bitcoin is a market need, not the technology. Technology (blockchain, etc) is totally secondary. Satoshi had the amazing talent to get right what the market was already needing: A fixed set of intangible units that could be owned and transferred. My guess is that the market will cling very hard on that intangible set and, if necessary, it will be ported to the technology that is best suited to manage that 21m set of units.