another observation:

i’m driven by a desire to understand, so i often questioned hype openly

over time i saw what i consider intellectual honesty labeled as negativity, esp by people who would benefit from blind hype, so i stopped asking publicly

but asking why or how isn’t negative, it’s how we get better

/ted | exploring the onchain frontier | surfing @ venice, ca | eating @ gjusta / gjelina

I think you have to concurrently ask “if the answer is *good* or if it’s *bad*, what did you accomplish?

For example: if you get people to admit that X coin has Y problems, what was your point of getting that answer. If the only 2nd order effect of that “FUD” is price go down, why would they engage? 

However, if you concurrently show that “if we fix Y problem in Z way, price will actually go up”

There is too much competition to *just* question hype.

Does this make sense in the spirit of your question here?