This makes no sense as crypto doesn’t have the same feature set as currency. It is like comparing a small number of razor scooters to the transportation network. They don’t belong in the same sentence.
Take Bitcoin as an example. People acquire BTC either when someone else transfers it to them (generally as a form of payment), or when their computer solves some useless math problem. I don't care about silly math problems, and the fact that you think it has value doesn't show me why I should think it has value.
I could see this "social proof" theory as a valid reason to believe BTC has value if enough people believed it, but that would essentially require that BTC be as ubiquitous as USD. If I can't pay my rent, buy gas, and hit up the local dispensary, and pay my taxes with BTC, the social proof theory doesn't apply strongly enough for me to even consider BTC a real currency. And, the story is even worse if you apply it to any of the more obscure cryptocurrencies (e.g. Monero, Dogecoin).
Bitrefill, movie theaters taking majors + Dogecoin, etc
What is your crypto position and why have you taken that position?
oh I didn't realize you were trying to reinforce a perspective on that, in this case there also are an overlapping set of financial comparisons as well, that are inherently tied to the overlapping feature sets
the only lacking thing is that a government isn't the one pushing for demand of the intermediary asset that is used to purchase other assets, and the people that are typically do not have an ability to control supply and demand or have a debt market to distort with a central bank
(quoting the above because I was responding before your edit)
> What is your crypto position and why have you taken that position?
and for after your edit, you might be in the wrong decade for your perspective, in my world what you're asking is like trying to prove I can't be a good source about US equities (or perhaps, currencies) based on whether I owned a stock (or a dollar) at some time in time and don't really debate about their mere existence - as opposed to acknowledging their existence and availability and would maybe debate about a specific one if compelled
"The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments."
since I was responding in good faith and wasn't making any argument as opposed to a valid reality that's easy to experience, is this is a cognitive limitation for you to feel as if you have been overwhelmed by excessive number of arguments? because that would say more about you and your ability to have this conversation at all, like maybe your worldview is incapable of being more plastic