"So you're argument here is that I'm just highly ignorant".

Nowhere I made such generalisation. Do not use strawman fallacy and put words in my mouth I have never said. When I see someone using logical fallacies I find it pointless continuing having a conversation. There is no sense conversing with someone who has no basic understanding of fundamentals of logical discourse.

"Neither you - nor Mr. Fresco - have cogently articulated why or how money is obsolete, considering that humanity uses it every day to allocate resources. You also haven't demonstrated how we're nearing anything close to a post scarcity world, the precise world that is needed for RBE to function."

Most of people still also believe that there is invisible man in heaven or use coal to heat up their houses. It does not kean that these things or ideas are not obsolete.
It seems that you do not understand what "obsolete" means. It means "outdated". Just because something us commonly believed or used does not mean it cannot be obsolete.

"Please tell me the irony of using a social network that is essentially built atop cryptographic money isn't lost on you. The very same monetary economics that you haven't actually debunked operate here using similar price signals we experience in the real world. Are you seriously arguing that money is obsolete on a platform that utilizes money as it's very foundation?"

You have just used another logical fallacy called "appeal to hypocrisy".
Where I share certain information has nothing to do with the subject/message that this information includes.

Besides that you seem clueless about the difference between fiat currency used by the state and cryptocurrency that is not controlled by the state.

I find cryptocurrency to be great technology for transition between monetary system and moneyless RBE system.

That's it. I am done with this conversation. Like I wrote above. There is no sense conversing with someone who has no basic understanding of fundamentals of logical discourse and keep throwing logical fallacies.