Wait, are you serious? I honestly couldn't tell without reading that twice, but I *think* you actually *are* being serious...
Which is awful. Especially if you work with crypto for a living. None of this works AT ALL without scarcity. The entire point of bitcoin, and altcoins for that matter, is recording the transfer of a scarce asset. Without scarcity there really is no asset, or at least no reason to record the transfer of it, since there's no value. How do you not get that*?
You can make arguments for supporting alts in your wallet if you like, but to categorically refute the validity of digital scarcity is just asinine.
* or maybe I'm just being expertly trolled...?
Digital scarcity within the framework of a single tokenthat of course makes sense. But expecting everyone to value your assumptions equally re: precisely which token(s) are important ("
artificial digital scarcity")? That is a non-starter, a fact which should be obvious to anyone who knows that human beings are not uniformly rational, nor uniformly in possession of the same set of needs and desires.
Let me be clear: I love Bitcoin, I hold Bitcoin, and (for now) we run Hive on it, exclusively... But I still feel that these arguments against other tokens are spurious at best. See my point about semantics.
tl;dr: I am indeed trolling you, but not in the way that you may think.