There's a reason why some people choose to be a "Bitcoin Maximalist". Around 99% of altcoins are nothing but centralized. Even when many of them have "superior features", none of them can outmatch the level of security/reliability of the original cryptocurrency (BTC). I don't identify myself as a "Bitcoin Maximalist", simply because I enjoy using Litecoin, Dogecoin, and Monero. But I always steer clear from centralized "shitcoins" that bring no value to the crypto industry. They're usually driven by hype. Solana, XRP, and the likes are one of them.

Ethereum used to be great back then, but the switch to PoS "killed it". It joined the ranks of other centralized "shitcoins". The more centralized the industry becomes, the more people will become Bitcoin maximalists. Perhaps, BTC will take over the world in the future? Only time will tell.

Yes, sometimes they treat altcoin investors a bit too much and I have seen it a few times but like I said, everyone's opinion is different. If we don't want to argue with them, we can just ignore them, that's it. Arguing about who is right and who is wrong will not make us or them better, and don't forget what our goal is when entering this market. We are here to make a profit, not to prove right or wrong, and arguing is not profitable. Therefore, I choose to ignore it if I feel the debate is not having good results.
In addition in investing, the results will be the best answer, so we should use the results to talk, not argue endlessly.

Unfortunately, there are way too many people who end up with a lot of issues and because of that we are going to end up with results that will not be profitable all that easily and this is why we are going to end up with a result that will not be steady, it will keep being volatile and there is nothing that we can do right now we should be considering the situation as sensitive.

If we keep on making money this way then we are going to see a lot of people make wild investments during this period we should be considering just making investments into things that makes sense and not really push us further, if we can do that then we are going to make that much more profit but if we are not careful then we are going to lose a lot more money. Just keep it at bitcoin or other stuff, otherwise it is not going to be that easy to handle, we are talking about strong coins and if you do that then you will be fine but if you invest into these memes then you won't.

If talking about technology, altcoin investors have never denied anything from bitcoin, they all admit that bitcoin is the king of the market and no one will be able to replace it. But not everyone joins this market because of technology, I believe up to 90% of people come here for profit. Therefore, there is nothing wrong when they choose altcoins because clearly altcoins have a chance to bring many times better profits than bitcoin. Each person's purpose is different, so the choice will also be different.

Also, I don't believe that there will be more and more bitcoin maximalists because as I said, people's goal is profit rather than concern for technology or privacy.

This is why you can only introduce so much of cryptocurrency to someone.

When they ask you which one is the best and which one should you invest in the answer should always be it depends on what you need. Diversification should be more encouraged. It will allow you to discover many more tech innovations and advancements that are not yet implemented in bitcoin.

Bitcoin might be the most valuable but it doesn’t make the other cryptocurrency useless already.

I'll try to keep my reply here general, and not specific to the project I work on, and say that... I think things are going to get a lot better for memecoins as there are a lot of us working on these issues, and working very hard to clean up the poor reputation non-Bitcoin digital currencies have.

It depends, how do you want to define it. Do I think that Bitcoin is the only valid project? No. Do I think that it is good to create separate monetary bases, and abuse 21 million coins limit? No.

Bitcoin is not the only valid project, but altcoins should not create their own coins, out of thin air. In case of Bitcoin, when it was launched in 2009, there were no other altcoins, so there were no reasons, to attach to other monetary bases, like dollars, because they were strictly incompatible with "digital cash". However, since 2009, you don't have to make new coinbase transactions outside of Bitcoin blockchain. All you really need, is to make regular, non-coinbase transactions, and extend existing use cases, without inflating the supply.

Imagine how better could Litecoin be, if you would have just some P2Pool-like 2.5 minute blocks (or 30 second blocks with 20 times lower difficulty, as in the original protocol), and if every Litecoin transaction could be batched and notarized on Bitcoin, long after being confirmed on Litecoin.

And imagine how better could Monero be, if you could have just some single UTXO for Monero, with some assigned amount, and you would have just one-input-one-output, moved from time to time, with nobody knowing exactly, who owns what inside Monero, while staying perfectly auditable in BTC. You could have just a single signature, moving the whole coin forward, and hiding from the outside world, all details about amounts and public keys, which would be hidden inside.

Many altcoins were created in the way they are, because people didn't know, how to write a better code. The only reason, why people switched from SHA-256 into something else, is because they didn't implement Merged Mining properly: if they would, then 51% attacking their coins would be as hard as 51% attacking BTC. The same with Monero: it has "fake multisig", because people didn't think about pubkey-based commitment at that time.

Note that being a Bitcoin maximalist doesn't mean, that if we would launch the network today, we wouldn't change it. You can see it, when you look at recently launched networks: all soft-forks are activated from the Genesis Block, without unnecessary glorification of legacy ways of doing things. If not limited by backward-compatibility, we would start new test networks with P2TR-only addresses, with all OP_CHECKSIGs working on Schnorr signatures, without SIGHASH_SINGLE bug, without duplicated transaction IDs, with witness stack in all transaction inputs, and so on.

If we will ever be forced to do the hard fork, then the new network will be started with all of those fixes. However, because we have around 600 GB of history, and 15 years of transaction data, we cannot just throw it away. However, as things will be simplified over time, and we will have for example purely UTXO-based model, like utreexo, then maybe we will reach a point in the future, where all nodes will be started in a new way, without handling a lot of legacy code.

First, try to say no to "abusing 21 million coins limit". If we will get there, then we can think about maximalism in the first place. In the past, when people launched new altcoins, they were told "Why are you doing that? You can do this on Bitcoin, too!". Now, I can see people saying the opposite, like "Launch an altcoin, because it is not going to be merged into Bitcoin". And this is bad in the long-term, because then users cannot have feature A and feature B. They have to sell one coin, and buy another, to get more features, instead of just using existing coins in new ways.

Having no maximalism is like being forced to buy vouchers for each and every store, where you want to go shopping. The end result is that instead of having dollars, BTCs, or some single and established coin, and buying things, you have a lot of useless vouchers, and you have to trade them on a daily basis to buy anything (and each trade costs you more money, than you would spend, if you would have all your savings in a single coin, used in different ways).

Another reason to have a single coin is speculation-related: in the long-term, many altcoins died, or lost their value over time. If they would be just wrapped BTCs, then you would have 1:1 peg, and they would never be "dead". You can check, what was LTC/BTC in the past. Or XMR/BTC in the past. Imagine having LTCs as wrapped BTCs from 2013, and having 0.03 BTC per LTC now. Or imagine having XMRs as wrapped BTCs from 2017, and having 0.03 BTC per XMR now. Sounds like a great deal, right? But no, you said "no to maximalism", and instead you have far worse exchange rates, and you have to sell your BTCs, to get some XMRs, and make some private transactions.

If you don't want maximalism, then what is your alternative? Hard-forking every time, when you want to make some big changes? Or maybe burning all BTCs, to get brand new BTCv2s, with new features? Or maybe selling all old coins, to get new altcoins, with new features? In the last case, it seems like the market price does not encourage people to do that, in the long term.

The same is true with the current model, where you have Bitcoin and altcoins. Maybe you wonder, why testnet3 blocks require 100 confirmations on some exchange, while BTC block is accepted after a single confirmation? The same is true in other cases. And if you have altcoins, then nobody invented anything better than "just wait for N more confirmations". Talk with some exchange creators, see their deposit/withdraw conditions, and see, how BTC is accepted after a single confirmation, while many alts have to wait for tens or hundreds of confirmations instead.

If that would be the case, then people would never use the term "mempool congestion" and "zero-confirmation transaction". Those things would simply not exist, and people would not spend so much time, talking about full-RBF, if it would be the case.

Oh, so who is maximalist now? Because what is the difference between BTC maximalism and ALT maximalism? If you want to keep 100% of your funds in some ALT, instead of BTC, then it is just another maximalism, the only difference is the coin, used as the golden standard, but all other things stays the same.

Some people don't want to think otherwise, but you are totally right. It's a game of possibilities, and they all should be used to get a better result.

Bitcoin is the king of crypto, so it goes to show that bitcoin leads the crypto market while altcoins follow the path of bitcoin. I tend not to be a maximalist but it’s obvious that bitcoin tops it all more than altcoins and the rest of shitcoins. If you have been here in the market for quite long, you will understand that bitcoin has an edge over the rest. And it’s undeniable, as everyone is going to side bitcoin no matter how few altcoins are still profitable.