It is well known, but it is not well understood, especially by those who use it as a comparison for crypto. The popular narrative is akin to a sensationalized tale which is contested by modern research on the subject. There is a misconception of the scope and effect of it, when in reality it was localized to a small number of wealthy merchants engaging in speculation on luxury goods with minimal economic damage overall as opposed to the popular narrative that it was a society wide mania which caused financial ruin for many. Basically the only thing they have in common is that they occurred in wealthy societies.

The number of people who were in tulip mania isn't relevant. Yet, whenever this comparison occurs, people try to debunk a comparison that isn't being made - instead of looking at the actual comparison that is being made.

Instead of being dismissive, could you then explain what is the comparison being made then? I illustrated how they are not very similar but you haven't really given any additional context on what should then be compared.