> Which is an entirely different metric
Of course not. If you disagree, at least try to present a coherent argument instead of just talking about squirrels. What entities do you think are missing from the list: exchanges or exchange-like entities such as on-line wallets, OTC desks, and large institutional traders
That might be overcounting even, since online wallets have nothing to do with speculation. So I'll correct myself: speculation is at most 75%, definitely a bit less.
> trying to shut down any actual data-driven discussion
I responded with exactly the data you asked for, just read it again :) If you need me to do the math for you:
75% speculation (at most) + 3% crime = 78%. 100% - 78% = 22%. 0.78:0.22 = 3.55:1 (at most)
> And then you have the audacity to ask for a source
Yes I do, since all data presented so far disagrees with your unsourced (though very strongly held) opinion.
Here's one example of how reality may be counterintuitive: High-frequency traders can make thousands of trades per second. How many people do you know who receive thousands of paychecks per second? From that alone it's plausible, obvious even, that forex speculation volume is substantially higher.
What's obvious to you isn't obvious to everyone else. That's why, in order to build a larger society, we need to set aside our biases and look at objective data in order to make informed decisions.
> Now compare that to crypto, where the entire marketing apparatus is built not upon its current value proposition but instead the idea that value will go up.
That doesn't sound too different from all modern investing. The stock market is also fueled by the illusion of the possibility infinite exponential growth. Bogleheads don't care about index funds' current value proposition. The grocery store won't accept your VTSAX as payment for a gallon of milk. You're just hoping that later you can sell your VTSAX to a greater fool.
Maybe the problem is you take everything the "marketing apparatus" says at face value? If one day you saw a TV advert for a pill that didn't work, would you also decide the entire medical industry is a scam?
> Why would I spend my time digging up data to quantify things are incredibly obvious from observation
Reality can be counterintuitive. It was once incredibly obvious that the earth was the center of the universe. Why should I spend my time digging up data when it's incredibly obvious from observation that the sun revolves around the earth?
HN is a place to engage with our curiosity, rise above anecdata, get out of our limited personal bubbles, and maybe even learn a thing or two along the way! Your immediate personal experience is not the objective reality for everyone on the planet. If you're just here to think with your emotions, ignore data, and rant about how much you hate change, you might feel more at home on Facebook or Twitter.
> when you're willing to lie and make up facts to support your narrative?
Source?