We may not be disagreeing, I took "this market is a bust" and the picaxe seller analogy to mean that you foresaw cryptocurrencies dying out completely, but you may have just been referring to the crash that's already happened.
...I hear they use Monero
The "store of value" argument doesn't mean anything. Beanie Babies, tulip bulbs, and Hummel Figurines are also "stores of value".
Also, what was the false equivalence?
Can I interest you in a share of Bear Stearns?
Anyway I’m done with this, I don’t even have a horse in this race.
In terms of the "market being a bust", the statement was a criticism of the current valuation of the cryptocurrency market - particularly, that it is based on a cauldron of unholy factors that I mentioned in the first post.
http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/11/i-had-to-borrow-money-to-pa...
I'm arguing that cryptocurrencies don't have the same economic model as most startups - which is essentially the expected future value generated by their operations discounted to the presented.
There are startups within that definition that have a low probability of achieving such - but it's the same fundamental economic model that applies to Apple that applies to a seed-stage biotechnology startup.
This doesn't extend to cryptocurrencies - given that currencies don't generate operating cash flows.