That’s true in general, but not particularly relevant here (except perhaps to demonstrate that this is a statement inconsistent with his reflexive pattern) because “Bitcoin is a tulip bubble without the aesthetics” is a pretty mainstream opinion, if one that a lot of mainstream proponents of have softened on (it is pretty close to Krugman’s position before that softened to a “a cult that can survive forever”.)

Actually, given his “not-bearish” line, which suggests he isn’t predicting imminent demise, only that is irrational to be on either side, his position seems like (despite that one line sounding like Krugman’s old position) it is actually identical in substance to Krugman’s more recent opinion: bitcoin has no fundamentals holding it up, but an indefinite supply of cultists that makes it unsafe to predict it going down at any particular time.