I haven't orange-pilled anyone that wasn't already sort of looking to be orangepilled in some way. I have tried really hard with the sort of "deep" discussion about money, but one of them turned into a trader/gambler(exchange-only shitcoiner), and another one just treats Bitcoin as the next dogma (people like Saylor really help push this sort of narrative), which is really frustrating. Incredible frustrating. Ugh...

Anyway, RE: the sort of, almost cliche, "What is money?" path: I've done it, and, again, it ended with further problems described above.

Maybe it's better to put it: "What problems did creating each kind of money solve?" and "What bigger problems did that lead to, or perhaps reveal were there all along?". Then you can lead them to what problems Bitcoin solves, and what bigger problems it can (and is) creating / leading to. Then, they'll have a realistic understanding of why and when to use Bitcoin, AND a way to help solve problems that are still unsolved within Bitcoin--which could lead to them wanting to help out.

One thing I like to talk about with technical maximalists is the speed of light. Even in some utopian Bitcoin vision, it leads to interplanetary gatekeepers because of the speed of light limiting how fast blocks could be propagated between planets. Point being, problems are inevitable, problems are soluble, Bitcoin is not exempt.

Hmmm. Which makes me think, maybe when people ask, if you want to orange pill them--tell them how much you have invested (like a rough percentage), but then instead of trying to convince them, jump straight to the problems that need to be solved and solutions people are working on and talking about. More fun that way anyway.