If he’s concerned with rights derived from fungible instruments, I have to wonder why he chose the example of a group already able to raise millions and paints

If he’s concerned with rights derived from fungible instruments, I have to wonder why he chose the example of a group already able to raise millions and paints them as victims, while ignoring the millions of existing victims across society who, through homelessness or the injustice of the legal system, find themselves without bank accounts or credit cards, and suffer the material consequences of not being able to use many basic business services. The author could have chosen to stand in solidarity with those actually suffering, but instead clutches pearls over a theoretical wrong done to a group who never needed nor deserved that concern in the first place.