You’re right of course, my point was not that cynicism is always false, but that people are cynically dismissive about everything so it holds zero signal.
It’s basically the Sagan quip, “They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”
BTC is more like some sort of asset class than a currency imo [0], but there are others that are more suited to currency.
[0]: https://www.matthuang.com/bitcoin_for_the_open_minded_skepti...
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses
The dismissiveness is often a signal, that was his point.
BTC has grown too far to be compared to Columbus setting out anyways, it's reached widespread access and accessibility, there are public companies devoted to it's access, BTC ETFs, etc.
We've reached the point where the cynicism is backed by reality. I think the fact we're now abandoning the currency pipedream for the most well known cryptocurrency says it all.
The point is to keep in mind that just because people are laughing doesn't mean you're a genius, but people do also mock people doing great things.
Elon Musk is another easy example, look at the HN dismissal of Tesla and SpaceX over the years - even in the face of obvious massive success. You basically have to dismiss the naysayers and evaluate things for yourself.
... why? Any point of view, pro or against, should be evaluated for substance.
Telsa naysayers were going on about things like "the quality sucks" "Promising FSD today is incredibly stupid", etc... well they were right? Quality has been varying depending on which part of the car you look like in a very "one step forward two steps back" way, FSD hardware did end up changing and the FSD beta is a farce, etc.
The only naysayers to dismiss are people who can't justify their position, but the same also goes for people who support something without being able to justify it. The problem isn't "naysaying", it's not saying anything at all.
I'd argue the problem is often overconfidence everywhere mixed with people who don't know what they're talking about.
I agree that stuff needs to be evaluated for substance, I just think there tends to be a pretty extreme status-quo bias by default so a naysayer is more likely to be wrong because of that.
Crypto is too old to play this card.
Could you have gotten rich off investing in Enron? Sure, it made some people fantastically rich. That doesn't mean Enron was a sound company.
Nothing with the word "currency" can experience 5 digit deflation and call itself anything but a failure in that regard. Nothing cynical about that take, and it's a useful signal for those who expect to treat it as a currency.