When Europe was first made aware of the existence of the platypus in 1798, it was met with great skepticism.
Specimens shipped back to England (from Australia) were thought to be the product of various animals sewn together- a hoax.
Possessing the bill of a duck, the tail of a beaver and a cat's furry coat- it defied logic because it lacked any parallel in the animal world at the time.
Offering an explaination, the Australian Governor suggested the Platypus might be the result of "a promiscuous intercourse between the different sexes of all these different animals”.
Square Pegs, Round Holes
When we encounter something novel, we have a tendency to try to fit it into an existing category when we'd be better served by expanding our system of classification.
The smattering of labels and definitions given to Bitcoin by various regualtors (tax, securities, criminal, etc) around the world is a good example of this phenomena.
“Bitcoin has features from many different assets, it doesn’t fit neatly into any pre-existing categories. This creates a psychological hurdle to contextualizing Bitcoin as an asset.” -Spencer Bogart (Bitcoin Is A Platypus)
"Bitcoin is not a stock, nor is it a startup, or an investment fund.. This is a completely different animal than the other types of assets that people are trying to compare it to. You need to view it through a different lens." -Marty Bent
Assuming that an individual property of something is representative of its whole leads to miscategorization.
Opportunity comes from seeing what others miss.
"If you're in 1995 and didn't understand how TCP/IP worked or how the World Web was gunna work you were really missing out. Take the time."