> a reverse ad hominem I think we call this an argument from Ethos. i.e. it leans on what someone is, rather than their persuasiveness (pathos) or how well the

> a reverse ad hominem I think we call this an argument from Ethos. i.e. it leans on what someone is, rather than their persuasiveness (pathos) or how well their argumentation is structured (logos). It is not a particularly strong way to make a case, but it is a way to make a case. If you have a problem with it, you are free to speak of what you feel should be considered instead. I personally think "it's a cryptocurrency and therefore a scam" argumentation is lazy and not very compelling, but perhaps your target audience does not.