I think the issue is more that a lot of people weren't cynical enough. I knew Bitcoin was a shit currency when I first heard about it, and thought that was all there was to it. I didn't understand that while it was a shit currency, it was a great speculative asset. I thought people would look at it, go "that's dumb", and move on. Apparently I hadn't heard of, or understood the Dutch tulip mania and similar historical events. I presumed people would be better than they turned out to be, and that cost me a lot of potential capital gains.

> The cynic always sounds smart and remains poor.

Why would cynics be poor? The OP mentioned "techies", many of whom have jobs paying 6 figures a year.

The Cynic on the other hand knows how to enjoy life with just enough. He is free, a spy for the gods.

But he keeps writing and talking about people who have more than enough, and how they are wrong.

He points out their foolishness - he has what they will never have. Enough.

It takes no imagination or insight to see reasons why something wouldn’t work. It’s the default mental pathway for every risk-averse beast. Skepticism is not born out of contentment and abundance but out of self-preservation. It’s not correlated with feeling enough, but with feeling bitterness and envy of those who took risks and gained an advantage instead of suffering consequences.

People who are content feel less need to take risks by accepting dubious statements without proof. They have what they need so why risk it for more?

Sceptical people will be grounded by what we know to be true. They will explore new ideas but will not be swept up by them. We need people like that or we'll waste our time on flights of fancy. But we need the irrational optimists to explore new ideas too. It's a classic exploration vs exploitation trade-off.

Many people who have risked their money by placing it on Bitcoin likely had enough, and they risked the extra money that they had lying around. Why not place bets on something you think might be probable? Is there something morally wrong in making some extra buck? Is it morally superior just to keep your money lying on bank account or what?

To have enough by your definition and to feel like one has enough are two very different ideas of enough.

The Cynic has enough if he has his cloak and found some food in the garbage can. He feels like he has enough. You might feel like that's not enough.

Conversely I might think the richest man in the world (by net worth) has enough. He feels like he needs more.

I'm pretty sure these peeps who hang out at /r/buttcoin are going to work like regular people to get some fiat currency to their beloved government blessed bank accounts. So I guess they don't feel like they have enough.

I have no idea what a buttcoin is, sorry.

To be honest I don't think the skeptical people thought bitcoin's success was probable and that's why they didn't bet on it. It's not really anything to do with them being content with what they have.

But it could be this too in some cases.

Some people do things unless they find a reason not to but so a skeptical person will only do things if they find a reason.

People who really feel they have enough might not see any reason to spend their time or effort placing bets, even on things they think are probable. But I don't think many people think that way.

> It takes no imagination or insight to see reasons why something wouldn’t work. It’s the default mental pathway for every risk-averse beast.

Quite the opposite: it takes a lot of strong will and risk to talk against a hype. A kind of risk-affinity that unluckily rarely makes you rich. :-(