But what does it change in the bigger picture?
I agree there might be people in this activity (that we call trading) who are in mostly or primarily for the thrill of it (as we all love the thrill of trading to a certain degree). But should we call them traders in the first place, and still less short-term traders in the second place just because they happen to make plenty of trades in a while? These people are hardcore gamblers deep inside but how many of them are out there?
I would say the majority (over half) of people who shor term trade are in it somewhat for the thrill
How do you know that?
And please keep in mind, it is not like half of short-term traders are in this business "somewhat" for the thrill. They should be in it exclusively for the thrill alone since otherwise you have no reason to call them gamblers in the first place (and in the second place market selection instantly kicks in). With that said, your assumption basically leads to a suspicious conclusion that there are more gamblers in trading than gamblers in gambling, which would be a paradox (read, it is highly unlikely). Further, you can't make big wins with short-term trading by definition as this approach to trading is about accumulating small profits now and then, here and there. Definitely not something which true gamblers are looking for (big wins without much ado)
I have been in the presence of pepe who trade 3 letter acronyms with no understanding of what they are buying or selling. After being on this forum for years a large portion of people have little to no idea why they are buying something outside of the idea that someday they are going to be rich, so yes long term holders too are gambling a lot of times. You seem to have been here a long time. Can we not agree that people buy crypto in which they just hope it goes up? If you ask them why I would reckon some would have no idea what they bought other than the drivel they read in one of the [ann] threads. Throwing your money at that I would consider a gamble, whatever their motives might be. I think we can agree on that right?