You are not wrong, yet surely when we are looking at the strength of bitcoin's investment thesis, we have more than just sentiment to look at, and surely bitcoin's price appreciation over the past 11-ish years tends to cause a decent number of people to consider that bitcoin had already run its course, so then there tends to be some superficial lack of appreciation on what bitcoin is.
We could even say that there were some with more hostility towards bitcoin in earlier years, but bitcoin was also quite unknown and not in the political spotlight.
These days we might have some political or even financial folks against bitcoin merely because Trump is for it.. and I don't even consider the matter to be very clear to attempting to characterize the level of hostility as going down, because various kinds of hostility likely still exist, yet merely in a more convoluted way, including the various kinds of attacks to channel folks through KYC channels, so there seems to be a lot of talk about how bitcoin is so great, but it's not really on an individual empowering kind of way like it is in El Salvador.. but instead, maybe dropping of hostility in order that we are able to custody bitcoin with various BIG third parties... until they rug us, or lock us out, or confiscate our coins, or make sure that we pay our taxes with any transactions.. to the extent that we are even able to directly withdraw bitcoin into our own private wallet without having to jump through extensive KYC hurdles.
The KYC threat is real, I agree. But sometimes I think it is becoming less likely with time passing by as more of the young folks in politics hold bitcoin themselves, making it less of an incentive to politically and legally attack it. Ultimately it's about the lobby something has going for or against it and bitcoin's lobby seems to be growing. However, I agree that KYC backdoors are probably being worked on relentlessly because the bitcoin network is a data honeypot for powerful intelligence agencies. Most folks probably use bitcoin like they use facebook and instagram. They don't care, or they don't know or are aware of that the trail they leave could haunt them down for a lifetime.
The custody approach is going to be big because financial service providers will engender trust among bitcoin investors to park their bitcoin with them. But it is the same thing as people being reckless about their data with facebook and instagram. I am frequently impressed how thieves can still get it done to get into banks and rob the lockers in a bank's basement. If that is possible, it is also possible -and probably even more possible - that a bank loses all the bitcoin. In contrast to assets in the lockers, investors can at least without any doubt prove what they sent into their
bitcoin bank account or bought via that account. Or I hope they can, if all data is lost it could still become troublesome.
Political or financial folks being against bitcoin because of Trump is true, but it can also be because of mere financial interest in other asset classes that potentially get drained because of investors shifting their focus and therefore their wealth into bitcoin.
...
Sure, of course, even in 2013, there was a path to 100x (to where we are at today), yet no one should have honestly proclaimed that it was already known in advance, since it was not really very clear, even if there was a path..and that is part of the reason that with an assymetric bet we do not have to bet alot in order to still potentially make out greatly..
There have been good and bad things that happened in the past 11/12 years, yet we are still here.. .with even more upside potential, even if some folks may well not appreciate the upside potential and also we can look at the slope of upcurve slope being less steep, but at the same time the going to zero scenarios are also not as many, as you seem to be saying similar things, with just different words (or different ways of saying similar things).
Of course nobody could know for sure where bitcoin is going or could be going, but in hindsight there is now some basis for doing some comprehensible calculations. Those calculations can't be accurate except for hitting the bully eye out of pure luck, but they can now contain some reasonableness. Putting the total amount of a new asset class, in this case a digital asset class which was bound to develop in these digital ages, into perspective of total global assets could have provided an indication for the upside potential back in 2010,11,12 and afterwards. That is why I think there is still great upside for bitcoin, but relatively lower compared to what it was. This is not worth mentioning because any asset class that literally starts at zero has an almost unlimited upside potential, but I think you know what I mean. Bitcoin has tons of potential and I doubt that a shitcoin will take its place unless there is a hugely orchestrated move by dozens of the existing billionaires, but seeing how twitter tanked in value makes me confident that even an orchestrated move to shift value from bitcoin to another shitcoin network could go horribly wrong for them.