1. We don't need causality, for as long as it holds, then increasing adoption must increase the market cap. If it fails to hold, then we will have disproven the correlation. Thus it is a worthwhile experiment which some altcoin should have done long ago.
I'm glad we agree on this.
2. Irrelevant. This exemplifies your lower IQ. Fact is investors don't spend as much of their coins as non-investors do, thus more non-investors means more transactions per money supply.
We nave no experience with cryptocoins used primarily by non-investors, with the possible exception of DOGE, and that didn't turn out terrifically well. So there is no data against which this hypothesis might be tested.
Monero will be destroyed. Any one want to wager a bet?
The reasonable expectation is that any particular experiment in this space will likely end short of complete success. I hesitate to use words like "destroyed" or "failure" because lessons learned can be carried over to the next experiment.
When I'm less bored with you and your "This is my farewell post!" antics I will address your misapplications of both Gresham's Law and the QTM, but that is most certainly not the case now. It's an easy exercise for someone else who wants to take it up though.