Agree with this. Big barrier in orange pilling or just learning more about bitcoin in general. A lot of people think they are "getting into bitcoin" and "learning about bitcoin" but they are really getting into and learning about crypto at large.

I've seen many get burned and give up ostensibly forever.

Many others don't get burned but get lost in the weeds of crypto/alts too long, and it takes much longer (if ever) before even touching on the important concepts in the periphery of bitcoin, like austrian economics, the nature of inflation and fiat money and their implications. What feels like progress learning about crypto ends up being just a detour that leads to fiat games reinvented. At that point they gotta walk back downhill before climbing the hill towards the right direction again. Some unlearning and relearning to do.

Actual convo I had recently after crypto came up and I said I liked bitcoin, included bits that went something like:

"Oh I tried the whole bitcoin crypto thing a few years ago, trading and staking, yield farms, and auto market makers, all that stuff"

I see it as darwinism of coins. Let it okay out and the chips fall, the strongest one (likely, Bitcoin) will emerge.

If you think it holds back Bitcoin awareness, that is an opportunity for me, as I could not be one of the early adopters, which I regret. I don't want more Bitcoin awareness among the masses before I stacked my sats.

I believe this misunderstanding "crypto is same as Bitcoin" is breaking down and will be junk very soon.

I've and many others have seen an era when MLM scams were at their prime in India. But scams as they were, they all died. Yes, still there are a few who keep popping up, but people now know and don't fall for them as easily as they used to.

I think the same is going to happen with the crypto complex.

I just ask those sorts some simple questions.

Will you go hungry today if groceries are cheaper next year (as it would be, on deflationary money)?

Will you stay homeless today if housing gets cheaper next year?

Will you send your kids to school once they turn 20 rather than at 2, because schools will be cheaper?

What exactly will you not buy that will be cheaper?

Usually, those keynesians fall silent.

Remember that one way to think about money is as fungible favours. When I work for someone he gives me a token which I can then use to get others to work for me. I do someone a favour and instead of that specific guy owing me a fovour I can now ask a favour of anyone who uses that particular kind of token as money. Money printing then is kind of like stealing favours, and successfully pretending like you did people a whole bunch of favours for which other people now owe you favours. It seems like a bad thing to allow people who didn't provide any value for others to go around bossing people around (literally lol) compared to the people who provided the value for others getting to steer the economy.

I guess there's a technocratic argument for why we shouldn't allow the people who did the favour to be the ones allowed to ask favours back and that instead a wise philosopher king should be able to direct the favours But that's awfully convenient Maybe it will be true for one in a million And that person probably will not ever be the one who seeks it So that's a hard pass for me. I say he who gains the money through mutually voluntary interaction gets to spend the money

Wanted to change the phrasing of one of the point a little bit. I'll reprint the whole paragraph here.

The coordination function / information exchange function of money will be enhanced. The direction of development of the economy will be decided by the people earning money in proportion to how much money they earn, not how much money they print. The people who worked for the money will decide to what ends it will be used. I'd expect better results that way. Generally people take more care making decisions when spending their own money, not to mention they're the only ones with a moral right to regardless of who would spend it "better" (better according to whom? But again: stealing isn't right. Not even if use the money to buy things for the victim. Definitely not if you use it for yourself like a regular thief, or use it attack the victim further as often is the case with the biggest thieving mafia thugs AKA governments today) Spending decisions will more closely track true preference hierarchies. People will invest and spend when they truly want to, and not because they have to in order not to be stolen from.

Yea, it's the dumbest. And I think the most profound answer is that the Criminals existed since forever.