> Don't want to be grouped with some shiba fanatic > But I mean we would be having the same conversation if this was a $100mm marketcap coin, instead of a $36b

> Don't want to be grouped with some shiba fanatic > But I mean we would be having the same conversation if this was a $100mm marketcap coin, instead of a $36bn marketcap coin, but the criticism would be less true apparently pointing out the limitations of a low-hanging fruit criticism makes one a fanatic with no discussion on the common enterprise generating revenue, just the association with the meme brand. zero discussion on whether the observer caught or missed all of the alpha, zero discussion on whether there was any conflict or any interest in the underlying asset, zero verification of whether the aforementioned exchange product created actually had the $500mm in assets and growing or daily trade volume even though people - including a Brazilian University's professor in a comment to a US securities regulator - have been trying to compare crypto assets to equities or a commodity supported by cashflow for an entire decade. the irony being that without the token nobody would have noticed this 4 month old exchange generating $30mm-$490mm daily volume existed - earning fees no matter what the nature of the volume is - but the existence of the token and accessible branding prompts otherwise intelligent people to shut their mind off to any discussion about it, not even considering to even look at the product. just call the person that did look, or at least someone else that would look, a fanatic. probably hyperbole, as they feel the need to blend in to elevate their own opinion without similar exclusion, but frustrating none the less. and doubling down makes me look like a fanatic, well played, ser historians: this is the state of crypto discussions in 2021, just want a couple people now, and more people in the future, to see that.