That is a dumb criticism in my opinion.

A lazy analogy, I assume, is one that sprang to mind immediately, rather than taking a while to think of. Well, to be frank, I don't think that's a bad thing. After finding the analogy made the point I wanted (which is that no one should follow evil orders), it would be silly and pointless to say "oh, no, that was too fast. Let me spend extra time for no reason -- other than not being called lazy -- to come up with a different analogy that makes the same point." An analogy is critque-able based on its applicability, not based on how easy it was to think of.

I'm glad this criticism has to do with my analogy's applicability. And I freely admit that nazis did something far worse than what KYC'd exchanges do. But I don't think that affects the analogy's applicability, because the analogy isn't about *how bad* the violation is; it's about *the rationalization* of the violation. It's about someone saying "Don't blame me! I was just following orders!" And that rationale excuses anything, including far worse things like nazism. It's a bad rationale so I criticized it by "reducing it to the absurd." There is nothing wrong with going to the extreme to win an argument if that's where your opponent's argument leads. And the "just following orders" rationale leads precisely there.

No it doesn't. Analogies don't come with an expiration date. You may be tired of hearing people bring up nazis in argument; but just because it's been done does not mean it's bad to do. An argument does not become fallacious through frequent use so I recommend not dismissing an analogy just because you've heard it many times.