I'm just speculating here, I don't think your linked example comment was downvoted because it was douchey or because you offended people in other comments. In my experience, comments like your example are downvoted because they're "obviously" wrong or irrelevant, which is of course very subjective. Clearly you don't think your own comment is obviously wrong or irrelevant, but you were rebutting "people don't want to send cryptocurrencies in their messaging app" by pointing out how useful you find Venmo: an app that is popular for sending non-crypto legal tender.

FWIW I didn't downvote your comment when I encountered it days ago, but I do notice that comments that have very basic logical flaws in them tend to be downvoted without replies. Downvotes aren't just a tool to enforce civility. This is just my assessment of your comment, I hope you take it in the good faith that I intended.

Hey, thanks for the feedback. Have hit my rate limit again. FWIW the comment was upvoted and left so for 36 h or so before I made my other comment on “real engineers” being worse than software engineers because they kill people (which was rather flamebaity).

I don’t want to transform this into a discussion of the original but I specifically intended to mean that to imply that the whole thing is that crypto functions like M3 and that value transfer is the underlying goal, legal tender just being a tool. After all, we use IOUs commonly (Splitwise exists on this principle) and they aren’t legal tender. I felt there was enough there to make the connection.

But anyway, if you think it is a logically incorrect comment, that’s on me to communicate better. Thanks for the feedback.

Anyway, I can’t have this discussion any more with you, because I have to save my comments for the most information transfer (I have an account rate limit).