I'm aware. What makes the parent comment particularly relevant to VanEck's ETF vs all other threads about Bitcoin?
This article is about a specific ETF. How many people upvoting the parent comment understand that, say, the Winklevoss ETF was set to 0.01 BTC per share, whereas VanEck set each share at 25 BTC (which is something special); let alone the implications of such a difference?
I think it's been established on HN that Bitcoin = bad, we don't need to regurgitate the point on every thread about it. I come here for nuanced discussion, if I wanted black and white thinking I'd be reading plebbit.
A good point made on /r/bitcoin was that the SEC has access to the DOJ, even if through unofficial channels. The price manipulation inquiries have yet to be resolved. If the SEC gives the go ahead, and the DOJ inquiry results in negative price action, those who invested in the ETF, which likely includes institutional investors, take it square in the mouth after assuming all was safe due to the SEC action.
Critical to the SEC's decision is investor access to the products, so that less knowledgeable investors are protected from unsound investments.
A higher share price restricts access to wealthier investors, the type that meet the SEC’s requirements for accredited investors.
That is just one difference between this ETF and the Winklevoss one, you were unaware of it (and the implications) but still regarded VanEck as not "special," further highlighting how pointless generic "Bitcoin = bad" comments are on threads about specific topics.
No, I'm implicitly agreeing with the HN community: comments that are considered valuable are voted up, without any need for relevancy police.
I don't believe you're naive enough to believe this is the whole truth.
If you are, take a look at this thread, where the parent comment (that you compared to other irrelevant comments) is the most upvoted.