I think it's not so bad that he didn't initially notice the satirical angle, so I did edit the original comment to clearly reference my reply which explains it (in case anyone missed it). But I wish he'd edit his comment to be more fair.
For what it's worth, another comment I made recently (on "An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster") was in earnest, i.e. I would not mind getting that exact email as a developer, but could be taken as satire.
So I think it's always fair to ask for satire to be pointed out explicitly. See Poe's law.
In this case though I was just making a satirical point about raising money from European VC's. (To me it is obvious and I just don't feel the need to edit it in any way, as explained in my reply.)
There are always a few clues as to whether something is being written in earnest or as satire, and if you read carefully you can usually figure it out. In this case, you can tell it's satire due to the glowing praise and then complete and final, non-sequitur hard pass, in a way that doesn't make sense in the context of the thread. It has to have another layer of meaning. I considered adding something obvious but I wanted the satire to remain fair and nuanced. This may be why it was taken seriously.