"It doesn't automatically increase the more people are using Bitcoin. It's entirely set by the open market of what people want to buy/sell Bitcoin for, nothing else."
And you're going to be able to argue that it's not being manipulated by people who already own Bitcoin, who want to make it seem like there's an upward trend, which of course enriches weighted towards the earliest adopters? In fact there's multiple occurrences of evidence by researchers seeing this kind of manipulative behaviour done by just a few actors.
"For it to be a MLM, current holders of Bitcoin would have to receive Bitcoin for each new person who gets/uses Bitcoin, which is clearly not the case."
What? No, the Bitcoin they already own increases in value - that's quite the gymnastics in your logic, there's no need for an increase in actual ownership unit wise.
"Most if not all of the early holders/investors/users of Bitcoin did so because it was fun."
Hilarious, fun as in gambling fun perhaps - otherwise there's countless people talking about how much money you can make by buying into Bitcoin, along with people talking about how they're doing it for profit - and don't care if it's an MLM or gambling. You've really convinced yourself of these narratives though?
Please don't misappropriate/equate actual stocks of companies to being equivalent to crypto-assets/crypto-"currencies."
It's simply disingenuous to claim it doesn't overlay perfectly with MLM schemes. You've not proven anything. We could actually create charts to overlay the benefit/behaviours of MLM schemes with Bitcoin and it would match perfectly.
There's another way to create consensus among society, and it doesn't require tapping into greed to align the greedy or gullible - and the VC-finance industrial complex - into alignment. It's through democratically elected governments created blockchain databases so governments are forced to be transparent, among the other benefits, and then mandating through law that they are used - with proper safety measures to counter potential pitfalls - and without redistributing wealth from the latest adopters to the earliest adopters. It will be a challenge to counter the "army of HODLers" and attempt at regulatory capture that will continue to reach as far into society as it can.
I'm far from alone in this understanding I have, and I'm not financially incentivized to write all of this out either; most people who see the same as me simply aren't spending the effort to counter the "army of HODLers" who inevitably use similar gymnastics or simply the lazy downvote mechanism to suppress counter-narratives.