This is a whole lot of nuance whereas four hours ago, you were disdainfully dismissive of any discussion related to JP Morgan and cryptocurrency. Further, an hour ago you agreed with Nouriel Roubini, noted Keynesian hatemonger of crypto, calling this whole discussion "a joke."

You effectively exerted the right to mock anyone who saw a contradiction between JP Morgan Chase's former and current positions, a set of people that, based on my titling, includes myself. Now that you have triangulated to an either/or position of what is/is not "permissioned" you're attempting to resolve the insult by assigning motives to my behavior.

I'm not agreeing with you on this because I believe Jamie Dimon in particular and JP Morgan Chase in general to be bad actors taking advantage of the amplification effect of their position in the market. The whole time JP Morgan has been slagging on crypto they've been a member of the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance, for example. My personal opinion is that the financial and research spaces of cryptocurrency and blockchains are exquisitely sensitive to sentiment and my personal experience is that JP Morgan doesn't say what they mean, they say what they benefit from.

is Hyperledger a cryptocurrency? Is SWIFT a blockchain? These are arguments of definition, not intent. The bottom line is that JP Morgan is inconsistent when it is profitable for them to be inconsistent. That's my allegation, that's the allegation of many observers of cryptocurrency, and that's why the two are mentioned together.