Now you're having trouble with "trivially obvious" - if something is trivially obvious, there is no need to assume anything in order to prove it true. Knowing the commutative property and that a * b = c, it is trivially obvious that b * a = c. No assumptions are necessary.

That's contradictory.

If you write "Knowing the commutative property and that a * b = c, it is trivially obvious that b * a = c", your assumptions are "the commutative property is true" and "a * b = c".
Because, within the scope of your argument, you take them for true without proof.

Assumptions are unnecessary only when you are trying to prove a logical truth (e.g. a tautology).
In all other cases, your argument is always based on assumptions.
As assumption, you can pick any sentence that is coherent within the grammar agreed on by the speakers, regardless of whether that sentence is true or false.

If a sentence is "trivially obvious" then you know that: it's coherent and true.
Therefore it can be used as an assumption.
And, on top of that, since it's true it helps make the argument a sound one.
(A "sound" argument is one that both is valid and its assumed premises are true)

Hopefully this is the last definition that stumps you, but let's be honest with ourselves: that's probably not going to be the case.

You are still making seemingly offensive remarks, but your tone is less insulting now.
Were you angry? It's perplexing.

Again, that's no surprise, because you don't know what fundamental analysis is. Your impression of the topic means about as much as a child's would.

Noted.

The technicals, of course. "It's up 30% in the last week" is an example of Technical Analysis, whereas "It enables frictionless and uncensorable transactions and allows for robust anonymity solutions" is an example of Fundamental Analysis.

Rule of thumb: if you are basing your argument on price movements, you're performing technical analysis. If you're basing your argument on the actual properties of the asset or company, you're performing fundamental analysis.

The definition is still blurry to me.
Aren't "technicals" an actual (but extrinsic) property, just like adoption/popularity?

I am asking becaue, apparently, my error was thinking that "fundamentals" are intrinsic only properties.

Let me elaborate further: now I fail to see the substantial difference between the trade volume of a currency (which is supposedly technical) and how widespread its usage is (which, according to you, is a fundamental).
Because the two things are functionally identical: every time you "use" a currency, you are trading it for something else (sometimes another currency).