I'm trying to understand his perspective here. The article says [some crypto index] "has underperformed the S&P 500 since 2017". So I pulled the bitcoin price from 2017 and it was $1K. It's now around $68K. So a 68x ROI. If you take the Dec 31st, 2017 price of $14K, it's a 4.8x ROI. The S&P went from $2258 to $6775. An ROI of 3.0x. So the logic here must be that if you include all the altcoins' performance along with bitcoin, they drag down the "crypto" performance to something less than a 3x return between 2017 and today. Furthermore, since anyone can make as many altcoins as they want, the supply of "crypto" is unlimited, whereas the demand is not, which means it is worthless. And bitcoin is a subset of "crypto", ergo Bitcoin is nearly worthless. Let's just set aside whether he's right or if it makes sense, my only question is: is this the argument he's making?

It was fun while it lasted