Patri Friedman

1/ Hypothesis: crypto has a "Bitcoin Bias": almost all thinking analyzes crypto networks as being much more like BTC than they are. As first mover, BTC is highly salient, and everyone in crypto either got rich from BTC, knows ppl who did, or wishes they got rich from BTC.

2/ This explains incorrect expectation that utility tokens will have significant price (because BTC is a low-velocity a store of value, hence has a high token price), that networks should be designed around linear blockchains (because BTC is).

3/ It's why people assume money/payments/store of value are primary use cases. It's why so many hate the idea of stablecoins (esp. fiat-pegged) - BTC is deflationary, meant to rise in price as it is adopted, and has an anti-fiat philosophy.

4/ And it's why people think that buying tokens early is the way to profit from each new crypto network (since that worked so well for BTC). I think this is false for most networks, and there will eventually be an Altcoin Apocalypse.

5/ This not a diss of BTC, it is one of the 3 tokens I own, and by definition it's the one token that should be analyzed with a BTC bias! But it represents only a small part of the potential crypto space, from both a product and tech perspective.

6/ Thus I believe that people are over-invested in things that seem like Bitcoin (look good in a BTC-biased analysis), and under-invested in things that seem unlike Bitcoin (look bad in a BTC-biased analysis).