Finally got back to this.
I don't think we understood each other here. I am talking about a specific group, a very large group that is growing because of social media. Do not do this for posturing. This means that such a person would essentially pretend to make an emergency fund, just so that they can show around that they accomplished this feat when in fact they didn't. $100 emergency fund is not a fund, it is a sad joke. Do it right, don't do it for posturing.
Your way of writing is more pedantic, specific. You are very correct. Here's what I mean to say based on the current state of things. Ranked from best to worst according to me.
1. Large emergency fund, optimally balanced with everything else and opportunity cost considered.
2. Too large emergency fund, opportunity cost failure.
3. Too low emergency fund, not able to cover any real emergencies.
4. No emergency fund at all.
On this scale, where are most people located? At number 4 and a little less at number 3. Now consider the potential consequences when you find yourself at each of these step. What is the consequence in being in number 2? You lose some potential profit. Compared to the consequences of finding yourself in number 3 and 4 and in a real emergency, the consequences of number 2 are completely meaningless. So for practical purposes of the majority, their fund can not be too large because this basically never happens and they should strive to increase them as much as they can in reasonable way. Between the two, I'd rather people have too large of a fund than have no fund at all. I hope that makes it more from where I am coming from.
With that, an emergency fund must be able to properly cover at least some sort of real emergencies. If your emergency fund was $100, what is the point of it?
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Guys should keep working on matters, and surely if their emergency fund is way smaller than their bitcoin investment, then they are going to have to put more priority into building up their emergency funds, and the same is true if the opposite is the case. If their emergency fund is much larger than the amount that they invested into bitcoin, then they have some leeway to be able to invest more into bitcoin. Of course, guys might struggle to figure out how to balance correctly, and surely if they end up screwing up, they are going to be the ones to suffer from their screw ups, so they should have personal well-being incentives in place to make sure that they are not overly screwing up and/or fixing areas in which it appears that they might be inclined to screw up based on poor balances.Will it even cover the ambulance ride to the hospital? 
As long as it is not impacting your income too much, I think that an emergency fund can never be too big but can only be too small. I do it conservatively like that.
It seems to me that an emergency fund can be too big, and there is no reason for such emergency fund to be larger than the bitcoin invested amount, and the emergency fund likely does not need to be larger than 3 months of expense, especially once the bitcoin invested amount gets up to 3 months or greater. Surely if a guy wants to maintain other back up funds besides the emergency funds, then he is at liberty to do such, and most likely a guy who already anticipates inconsistencies in his income and/or his expenses, he may actually need to keep larger quantity of back up funds merely to deal with such fluctuations and/or inconsistencies in income/expenses. As long as it is not impacting your income too much, I think that an emergency fund can never be too big but can only be too small. I do it conservatively like that. 1. Large emergency fund, optimally balanced with everything else and opportunity cost considered.
2. Too large emergency fund, opportunity cost failure.
3. Too low emergency fund, not able to cover any real emergencies.
4. No emergency fund at all.
On this scale, where are most people located? At number 4 and a little less at number 3. Now consider the potential consequences when you find yourself at each of these step. What is the consequence in being in number 2? You lose some potential profit. Compared to the consequences of finding yourself in number 3 and 4 and in a real emergency, the consequences of number 2 are completely meaningless. So for practical purposes of the majority, their fund can not be too large because this basically never happens and they should strive to increase them as much as they can in reasonable way. Between the two, I'd rather people have too large of a fund than have no fund at all. I hope that makes it more from where I am coming from.