(like how AM IPO holders have an enormous advantage due to 35x rise in share price making a larger barrier to entry for new investors on an absolute basis)
This statement is just another way to say "AM is a bubble and the shares aren't worth what they go for". That this realization is slowly percolating even through the investors that'd be
much better served thus should be perhaps a little worrying
What the hell are you talking about? This is a clear-cut, textbook example of a strawman failure of logic. I in no way implied anything of the sort. The fact that you think it's even remotely logical to infer what you did would frankly be hilarious if it weren't so abjectly sad.
Let's try and think together.
If the actual value of AM is above its trading price, then the original buyers hold no advantage over later buyers. Stating that the price going up constitutes a "barrier to entry" is exactly equivalent to stating that the current price exceeds the fair value, as that excess and that excess only could in fact be constituting a barrier to entry. This is all.
Perhaps a revisiting of what "strawman fallacy" means is in order, seeing how you fail to correctly identify it in the field.
Clearly, you don't understand simple logical constructs. Well, I'll give you (another) benefit of the doubt, and limit that to the possibility that you simply don't understand the idea that arguing against a statement
not actually made is a fundamental failure of logic. I made a statement, you incorrectly pretended it was a different statement, then you made an improper argument based on your inference (and I'm being generous here by calling it an inference. Seeing a small portion of your posting history, it was likely an outright but indefensible attempt to appear clever while also trying to direct attention to your
alter ego dear leader.) Repeating the argument which was based on the failure of logic, such as in the quote above, could be taken as an indication that you concede the failure of logic but are trying to divert attention again from the failure by simply repeating the same failed argument again (which is, in itself, an informal fallacy.)
The "bubble argument" you are improperly making
may even be defensible (although I don't at all think it's true), but the method you're using here to try and make it is laughably bad. Use real logic, you might even win an argument from time to time.