What's notable is that Trolfi admitted he couldn't be argued out of his position, so only empirical evidence will convince him.
The original poster asked what I would consider proof of success. Obviously that can only be empirical.
Logic can only change someone's
expectations of success. I could be argued out of my position, but I see big flaws in the supporter's arguments (like "the price will go to the moon because the supply is limited") which they refuse to acknowledge. Why should I change my expectations then?