Not to challenge your argument itself, and I know you’re not the author who commented above, but I really dislike this kind of “argument-swapping.” I see it a l

Not to challenge your argument itself, and I know you’re not the author who commented above, but I really dislike this kind of “argument-swapping.” I see it a lot, for a lot of issues, but especially for issues that are complex and not deeply understood by most people, like Bitcoin, corporate finance, etc. It starts with an easily-digestible and shareable argument, like “Bitcoin prices and market cap are a lie.” Then someone points out that, yes, perhaps many people misunderstand basic concepts in finance like spread and market cap, but that applies to any asset or currency or security. Then someone else joins in with a completely unrelated argument, like “yeah, but Bitcoins don’t actually do or represent anything, whereas stocks do.” Even assuming this is a valid argument, it doesn’t change the invalidity of the first argument. But I fear that all too often people see the entire exchange as if it’s a sequence of related claims, and thus feel inclined to believe and share the initial talking point as if it was somehow corroborated by the later unrelated argument.