> that is in no way substantively different than addiction Yes, I agree with the article's multiple comparison's to addition. Eg, quoting it: "Like any addict

> that is in no way substantively different than addiction Yes, I agree with the article's multiple comparison's to addition. Eg, quoting it: "Like any addiction, crypto can offer people an escape from the world and a short-term dopamine hit at the expense of everything else in their life." > is pretty much a _practically_ useless sentiment Which is why I said "and get help in recognizing and avoiding the path that brought them there in the first place". Eg, again quoting the article: "Experts like Peter Klein, a cognitive behavioural psychotherapist who offers CBT for cryptocurrency-related mental health issues," > If your dog dies, is it acceptable to grieve? Yes. But if you're still grieving a year later, at 'the expense of everything else in [your] life' then it's a problem. > Shouldn't you take a Xanax and go back to work? Xanax is a prescription drug. Acquiring it legally means that you've gotten some help. I don't think CBT is as useful for the case you described, but that's a wild-ass guess on my part. > If we can simply say it isn't acceptable...what good does that do? I don't know. I didn't say that. Clearly we see approaches towards gambling addition more than "you get what you deserve", so I really don't see your underlying point.