I'm arguing that it is ridiculous to risk your own funds - and especially funds you cannot afford to lose - based on someone else's market activity or perceived support of an investment unless that person is your financial advisor or fund manager and carries indemnity insurance.  It's speculating at best and gambling at worst, whether you choose to label it "investment" or not.  

Based on no evidence whatsoever, people assumed Matthew had some kind of inside knowledge about the likelihood of pirate paying.  Matthew should rightly be condemned for largely failing to rebut that assumption, but it doesn't change the fact that people were buying up pirate debt hoping to profit off the misfortune of others purely because they thought it was a "sure thing".  Without intending any disrespect to Matthew, investments and securities aren't his "thing" - trusting his "judgement" regarding the likelihood of pirate paying was absurd.