What constitutes these eras? And why do you bring that up when it was about a class of products not being "an actual cryptocurrency". I would have thought there are properties to the product that make it belong to the class, not merely when it was created.To me these unnamed things and their meaning you talk about are absolutely not clear enough.
I believe you two have a point. But it doesn't come across...
PS: I would argue in 2015 "crypto" was mostly known as abbreviation for cryptography and had nothing to do with decentralized public ledgers.
NTS would be something like
* "All things people are calling cryptocurrencies made after 2015 are just finance-bro scams."
* "But what about TotallyLegitCoin, it's not a scam."
* "But that's not really a cryptocurrency."
The fact that there isn't a formal name for the era of "pre-finance-bro crypto" or "first wave crypto" doesn't mean it's has anything to do with the scotts. The parent's language might be a little ambiguous but that's to be expected when trying to describe yet unnamed things and their meaning is clear enough.
Willfully misunderstanding someone's words to create a logical flaw that isn't there should be its own fallacy.