My whole point here is that the entire Tulip situation was over-stated.

Wikipedia is not an acceptable sole-source when specifically discussing matters accused of being incorrectly hyped up in history. It will have exactly the same faults. You need more primary sources. Preferably, not Dutch Calvinists.

"there was an offer"

You can't price markets by offers. Offers are not a trade. Hell, you shouldn't even price them by a single trade.

"“There weren’t that many people involved and the economic repercussions were pretty minor,” Goldgar says."

...

"So if tulipmania wasn’t actually a calamity, why was it made out to be one? We have tetchy Christian moralists to blame for that. With great wealth comes great social anxiety, or as historian Simon Schama writes in The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age, “The prodigious quality of their success went to their heads, but it also made them a bit queasy.” All the outlandish stories of economic ruin, of an innocent sailor thrown in prison for eating a tulip bulb, of chimney sweeps wading into the market in hopes of striking it rich—those come from propaganda pamphlets published by Dutch Calvinists worried that the tulip-propelled consumerism boom would lead to societal decay. Their insistence that such great wealth was ungodly has even stayed with us to this day."

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/there-never-was-real-tulip-fever-180964915/