I know you don't talk to "shitcoiners" (people that may expose your lack of knowledge, authority as a "bitcoiner", and reputaton), and I do not expect a reply. But I'm writing this because I was wrong, in the part of my post where I said "this is nonsense".

I asked a friend of mine to explain liquidity, I asked him if my sentence "This is nonsense" was actually true. It isn't. My example with gold and silver, for instance: If I have a huge amount of silver and use it to buy all the gold in town, which I then hoard forever, then I've destroyed the liquidity of gold. In this way, my example can be an example of money competing for liquidity. So I was not correct in regarding it as gibberish. If e.g. litecoin becomes more liquid than bitcoin, then it is easier to trade. If more transactions are made with litecoin (as was the case briefly in june of this year), that means it might be adopted instead of bitcoin, giving it even more liquidity. My position is that litecoin is a better version of bitcoin, so I don't care (i just want strong crypto, so we can make the world a better place). But if you believe that bitcoin is better, and even if you believe that every coin is worse than bitcoin, you are not dishonest here. You want crypto adoption. That's fair.