[ayngg]

It is well known, but it is not well understood, especially by those who use it as a comparison for crypto. The popular narrative is akin to a sensationalized tale which is contested by modern research on the subject. There is a misconception of the scope and effect of it, when in reality it was localized to a small number of wealthy merchants engaging in speculation on luxury goods with minimal economic damage overall as opposed to the popular narrative that it was a society wide mania which caused financial ruin for many. Basically the only thing they have in common is that they occurred in wealthy societies.

[IncRnd]

The number of people who were in tulip mania isn't relevant. Yet, whenever this comparison occurs, people try to debunk a comparison that isn't being made - instead of looking at the actual comparison that is being made.

[ayngg]

Instead of being dismissive, could you then explain what is the comparison being made then? I illustrated how they are not very similar but you haven't really given any additional context on what should then be compared.