I think we are already past "mass adoption", "competitor to Visa/MC", "micropayments" and other early pipe dreams. Bitcoin will probably remain/become a digital collectible token and disappear in the wallets of institutional investors, family offices, HNWIs etc. In some ways it is superior to gold. In other ways, inferior.
This analysis is wrong. The volatility of bitcoin is very very closely linked to the fundamental problem of coin distribution. When coin and wealth distribution starts to decline, it's possible for volatility to decline as well. Before that, it's more or less impossible.
Given the problem of distributing, say $1 trillion efficiently using PoW, the most efficient way of doing that is to have massive volatility. Without volatility, insane amounts of electricity would be wasted both because the price would be much higher, and because the required profit margins for mining would be quite low.
Remember that bitcoin is designed for a minimum of 20% price increase y/y in order to just keep the electricity usage stable. Actual price increases have been way higher than that, but it's natural, if not a law of nature, for an asset with that sort of price increase to be volatile.
However, there is absolutely no reason to use bitcoin to price goods. It's actually quite suboptimal. Even bitcoin critic and nobel laureate Robert Shiller showed how
"indexed units of accounts" are superior.
So basically using a basket of currencies (like libra), or inflation-adjusted USD is superior as the unit for pricing goods, compared to USD or (worse) bitcoin.
Now if you believe that bitcoin's success is tied to having goods priced in bitcoin, the whole South American continent wants to have a word with you. In most parts of South America they have experienced hyper-inflation, but managed fine as they did their transactions using inflation-adjusted prices.
The whole cryptocurrency infrastructure is already designed for this - separating pricing (in USD, EUR etc) from the transaction currency.