> I am quite confident my arguments are sound. Ah, yes. Like the argument that "Tether is being investigated for fraud" thus "every stablecoin is essentially f

> I am quite confident my arguments are sound. Ah, yes. Like the argument that "Tether is being investigated for fraud" thus "every stablecoin is essentially fraud". Seems like a water-tight argument you have there. > However you are posting from a brand new account, So, instead of addressing my actual arguments, you're concerned about going through my account history? Great. Note that my account is not "brand new", though: I created the account days ago, to participate in discussions that have nothing to do with "blockchain". You can check it out in my history, if you haven't already. > continuously splitting hairs rather than confronting the argument head-on Point one one single argument that you have made to me, that I did not respond to head-on. Just one. I'll wait. In the meantime, while you look for it, and as a proof that you are indeed argumenting in good faith, feel free to respond head-on to the question I already made 5 times: What if I choose to get my returns in some asset that is pegged to USD (e.g. DAI, USDC), am I still speculating on the value of BTC? Until you do, I'll keep assuming you are discussing in bad faith and refuse to reply to anything else you write. > and generally engaging in bad-faith argumentation tactics. There is exactly one such comment from my side (or one that could be seen as bad-faith, if you consider "pedantry" to be a sign of bad-faith), and it was not directed at you, so I'm not seeing where your complaint comes from. I re-iterate: point out a single example of me engaing in bad-faith argumentation with you. A single actual example. And then, maybe, we can continue the conversation. Until then, and as I already said, hope you have a nice day.