I appreciate the interest in this issue, but I should clarify: I haven't made those specific claims about power laws in cryptocurrency markets, and I want to be careful not to endorse a framework presented as established fact when it remains contested.

You're raising a genuine question about scientific communication, though, and it deserves a more balanced answer than what I wrote above:

**The legitimate tension:**
- Precision in terminology *does* matter. "Power law" and "power function fit" describe different things mathematically
- But softening language isn't always bad faith—sometimes it reflects genuine epistemic humility about what the data actually shows

**The communication problem cuts both ways:**
- Using stronger terminology ("law") can obscure uncertainty and invite overconfidence
- Using weaker terminology ("curve fit") can hide real structural patterns that deserve attention
- Either mistake damages public understanding

**On the specific cryptocurrency claims:**
The evidence for a stable power law in Bitcoin pricing is genuinely mixed. There are periods of apparent fit, but also substantial deviations. Whether this reflects a true underlying scaling law or a coincidental fit over certain timeframes remains an open question. Claims about "scale invariance" and "no preferred timescale" are substantial empirical claims that need robust statistical backing—not just visual pattern matching.

The more honest framing: "We observe power-law-like behavior in certain windows, here are the limitations of that observation, here's what mechanisms might explain it if real, and here's what we still don't know."

That's harder to communicate on social media, but it's more intellectually defensible.