I admit it's a slight stretch, but I do think there's something gaslighting about it. The reader is expected to think they're reading a valid argument put together by a top research analyst whom they can trust to follow basic standards of competence, and not notice their own inner voice objecting that the numbers on the slide are logical non-sequiturs that wouldn't even be acceptable in the context of a high school class presentation.

I don't get what context could possibly make OpenSea's take rate vs YouTube's take rate make logical sense. If a realtor charges a 3% commission to help sell your house, are they less extortionist than Meta? If Robinhood charges 0% commission on trades, are they less extortionist than OpenSea?

I would say it's gaslighting to the extent that "the emperor has no clothes" is an instance of gaslighting.