But hang about To steelman the argument Because this is the first perfectly scarce money Does holding and making the money more deflationary, more scarce constitute a benefit for network? ie, by increasing the purchasing power of the tx fees?

No. This is the same premise that drives shitcoins on ethereum and the like where people "stake" to increase scarcity. It never works because people doing that are not net contributors to anything, actually it's the opposite; they benefit from others creating value by trading in the currency.

To put your point another way: Increased scarcity may provide increased value to other holders but it doesn't provide value to the network. Therefore holders do not contribute and are free-riders. Is that about right?

Basically

but isnt driving up scarcity and therefore the purchasing power of the tx fees providing value to the network? because it helps miners pay for electricity? or is it just semantics?

You're not driving up scarcity unless you're actually buying, the scarcity you've created is already priced in. Why hodl? So that *your* purchasing power goes up. But where does that wealth come from that you get? It comes from others purchasing the bitcoin. So, by holding, you're front running others, youre saying "I think this thing is going to be valuable to others in the future and so if I'm right I will be rewarded for my foresight". This is not unethical. Ultimately, it's those people on boarding that drive the purchasing power up, because your options are 1) buy shit with it, or 2) sell to them. If they offer a premium, youre going to do that if you aren't starving. So those people drive up the profitability for miners, given that the block reward is static. Profitability leads to more competition, increase in hash power to capitalize on that larger margin and the security of the network benefits. What you actually do by hodling is *reducing liquidity.* this goes both ways. Your lack of liquidity during demand appreciation has a price impact that does benefit miners, but ultimately, since youre siphoning wealth from newcomers, as you should for taking the risk, any quantifiable benefit to the network is negated, and the benefit you see is largely borne by the newcomers, not hodlers. You get more than you give in terms of capital, and you wouldnt do it if that weren't true. Theres no perpetual motion machine here, there is a law of conservation of capital if you will.