Hmm. Whenever there is a market, there are at least two participants that are willing to commit capital to express a view. Your argument is (though it's not clear either way) that once the trade is done they are more cognitively disadvantaged. I.e. you put your foreskin on the chopping block - that's a commitment, but once the cleaver has fallen, you either won or lost and the cognitive input into your commitment is gone. How about I modify my hypothesis to "players that are willing to make a financial commitment have better predictive power than the ones who are not" while the previous version was more like "players that are financially committed ...". I don't think it really changes the argument at hand, but it's a valid suggestion.
I don't follow crypto as much as I should, considering that it's a nascent financial asset. Since it should follow to usual two-hump curve common for all new technologies, the bearish/bubble case is simple. However, I had several conversations with proper crypto heads about the long term perspectives.
First takeaway was that block chain technology only makes sense if it's incorporated in large scale distributed network and has wide enough adoption. Otherwise, it is going to be very vulnerable to a variety of exploits (miner takeovers, denial-of-service type of attacks etc). The argument is that block chain technology is worthless without broad adoption, otherwise it becomes simply a more expensive form of a database technology. That probably agrees with your statement that most smaller cryptos/tokens (especially the ones that are not utility) are a good sell against the major ones like bitcoin or etherium.
Second point was that major cryptos are continuously evolving, even though that it somehow never makes the news. In essence, we are already on bitcoin 5.something but people are not catching up to that fact. For example, by the time BIS reviewed cryptocurrencies as a model for payments, lightning network (essentially a bitcoin tunneling protocol) was already operational but relatively unknown.
As an aside, I think one of the issues is that 99% of discussions about crypto are happening between people who don't really know the technology, myself included. My thoughts were simple macro arguments that if crypto even partially replaces cash as a vehicle of illicit trade, it's money mass (and thus market cap) will be substantial.
