Not every financial dealing is in the papers, sometimes you need to know people with skin in the game to know what is going on. They aren't buying coins through the 'over the counter' ways basement-dwelling kids buy coins though. If you want sizeable quantities of Bitcoin then you need to be buying very differently in a whole new world of brokering. None of this affects the price you see on exchanges, as you can imagine someone buying USD billion worth of coins is an entirely different venture, exchanges can't supply that, they don't have enough sellers. You have to reach out to people who mined significant quantities years ago and also have the problem of not being able to sell on 'Coinbase grade' exchanges.

Regarding 'fake cryptocurrencies', there is a big distinction between Bitcoin and every other coin. Bitcoin genuinely isn't controlled by one individual, it is actually decentralized in the true sense. Is anything else?

A second point regarding 'fake cryptocurrencies' is that a currency - crypto or otherwise - has to be a means of exchange. Apart from in-game tokens and gambling chips there are not a lot of things you can buy with these wonders of the blockchain. Bitcoin is different in that regard, you might struggle to buy things with it at your local newsagent, however, it did gain value as a currency for buying drugs in the days of the Silk Road. You can donate to Wikileaks with it too. There was a time when you could buy other things with it, even a Dell computer. Although Bitcoin did not make the cut for retail transactions it did morph into digital gold, definitely with value as a currency in the eyes of many, albeit with tax dodging benefits.

A third point. From a city point of view Bitcoin is a commodity, everything else is merely an 'unlicensed security'. Of course there are those who want to beg to differ on this. But we live in a world where tomato ketchup can be deemed a 'vegetable' by regulatory types.

The distinction is that coins that are decentralised in name are still with a central point of control due to having a company/org that can be identified as starting it. This is an inescapable distinction. Due to history Bitcoin has ended up as a unicorn, it is not possible to anonymously setup another coin and walk away from it as happened with 'Satoshi Nakamoto', who created what 'he' did from the 1996 NSA White Paper on blockchain things, allegedly. Every subsequent coin has creators, whether they promise anonymity and give away 100% of the coins to strangers matters not.

At time of writing it does not look like anything but Bitcoin really is satisfying points 1 - 3 to make it as something that is a currency in the true sense of the word. Words are our servants and not our masters and the term 'unlicensed security' is generous, 'crypto-currency' is a bit too generous since means of exchange is far from satisfied. 'Tokens' is good, as in those things you might buy to spend in a car wash. 'Chips' would suit me fine too, as in those things you buy at a casino.

Regarding the use of quotes, I am not an American and I know that U.S. readers do not understand humour that is used elsewhere in the English speaking world. American English is very different, for instance the country name 'Ireland' is pronounced 'Ireland' but Americans think it is 'I-re-land'. Poe's Law applies and on HN there is not the custom of using emojis, therefore I tend to use air quotes to indicate that I am not being deadly serious about analogies and phrases that Americans may consider pejorative.