Feel free to present a case where the economic impact of gaming is less than Bitcoin (feel free to include every crypto-currency ever made in that comparison).
Market caps in speculative, unregulated markets aren't indicators of economic relevance. Gaming facilitates billions in production on a yearly basis. Crypto related activity produces very little in comparison. And no, someone buying billions worth of Bitcoin doesn't count (just like people buying GameStop stock doesn't reflect the economic impact of the gaming industry).
Don’t move the goalposts. Bitcoin has little economic impact relative to its energy use you wrote. Oh, but it does. Miners created something of value, others bought with real money substantially greater than the cost of creation - and durable enough to resell indefinitely (with mundane care & handling). The only ones fit to establish “economic relevance” here are those who actually bought Bitcoin, with an estimated total resale value of $650B. Picasso's Les femmes d'Alger was sold for $179.4 million in May 2015; the economic impact of Pablo painting for a few days was indeed enormous. Those vs gaming, where while making/marketing games is profitable the tremendous energy going into playing them produces no lingering resale value of any form.
So no actual arguments then (just more pumper nonsense around prices). If you have no interest in economics, why attempt to pretend you do (see your Pablo reference as an example of why you might've not paid attention in Econ 101). Why not just say: "buy bitcoin because moon money" and move on.
Rather than a case, how about a framework to evaluate going forward: the market. Given enough time, I'm pretty sure the market will root out the "real value" of bitcoin and keep assessing the "real value" of gaming.
Let's watch for 5-10 years. If you're right about bitcoin, I bet its price will be much lower and you can gloat. If you're wrong, I bet its price will be much higher (because I agree with the basic assessment that gaming "feels" much bigger today). Luckily, we can both place our bets based on our best assessments of the future.
How confident are you that you can present a substantive case against bitcoin that matches the diligence that Ross Stevens has done for years? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lczPTYf_tvA
Asset values don't reflect economic impact/relevance (as in a $100MM Picasso doesn't indicate $100MM of economic activity). That's why GDP is used as an indicator for economic growth, not market caps.
Market cap is an estimated resale value under current/predictable conditions. GDP is a total of cumulative annual transactions. We can measure Bitcoin both ways, and each is remarkable.
As it happens I just listened to a long talk by him, perhaps this one. He kept arguing that "bitcoin isn't volatile, because the price of various things measured in bitcoins keep falling".
Either he doesn't know what volatility means or he is trying to scam people.
