Not everything Eric or Udi says is wrong. That would be a Guiness-worthy achievement. However, most of the reasoning seems to be coming from a starting point and with a goal of maximum controversy (because that generates attention) and then you get recommendations like using FTX as your wallet, or normalization of shitcoinery.

If you want to generate maximum controversy because your goal is to change behavior, that is fine, but don't make victims out of the people that you actually influenced. That is imho spending your influence capital unwisely: solving a problem by creating another problem. Thus, ignoring is often the best choice because the solutions suck.

I sometimes talk to shitcoiner (devs) at conferences and not online, not to validate them, but to learn what they're dealing with. I have tried also talking to influencers at conferences but they are not really interesting because there is nothing to learn. Even the philosophical ones. There are many cypherpunk devs involved with (select) shitcoins that, if you talk to them about the right things they try to achieve on (imho) the wrong platform, there is a conversation to be had when you focus on the tech, not the platform. I don't try orange pilling these people because often they found themselves excluded in the early days and I get that, because it was extremely hard to participate as an outsider back in the Gavin days for example, it scared me away too. Influencers on the other hand often have nothing solid to offer and I avoid most of the Bitcoin-native influencers too for the same reason.

Agreed, but then these are, in my opinion, among the poorest of critics. Personally, I'd rather follow web3privacynow than bankless. Both are Eth oriented, but the former is working on solutions, the latter... shilling whatever makes more ad revs.