Roger Ver is a well-known name in the crypto community (even I have heard of him), libeled incessantly by BTC Maxis, and has a new book to flog, 'Hijacking Bitcoin'. Per their discussion, Ver is claiming to cite documented facts showing that BTC has been intentionally prevented from adhering to Satoshi's stated, and coded, intentions to be an anonymous replacement for cash. Patrick of Anarchast is also well known in the sovereignty community, so there's a significant number of folks that will want to have a look at the interview, just short of an hour and a half.
IMG source - Odysee.com/@Anarchast
BTC is demonstrably not very fungible. I note that devotees have tried assiduously to cast it as a new form of gold, or something that can serve as a store of value, while other currencies, such as LTC, can serve as cash. Ver points out that wasn't at all what Satoshi coded, nor wrote he had in mind, and the prevention of block size increase directly contravenes mechanisms Satoshi did potentiate. I think the recent influx of banksters into the space affirms Ver's contention that BTC has been prevented from serving it's original purpose, and agree that other currencies have arisen that are better able today to do so.
But, my opinion on that market and product isn't either important or relevant, as Ver's and Patrick's of Anarchast are. Have a look and decide for yourself.