Whether one agrees or disagrees, this is at least a coherent, well-written
argument. Those are rare enough in crypto that it deserves credit on that basis
alone.
It seems, though, like the author is prematurely dismissing a large and
evolving sector of the crypto space. No rational investor thinks that every
project is going to succeed in exactly its current form. Improvements will
continue, and the projects that ultimately become mainstream household names
will have developed a long way past today's versions. In that regard, the
author's criticisms have merit regarding projects as they exist right now, but
the question is really how polished can we reasonably expect such new ideas to
be at this point? Being a work in progress is not the same thing as being
fundamentally 'ill-suited' or a failure.
If final judgement is rendered solely based on where we are today then,
frankly, all of crypto is a failure. That's a bit short-sighted, no?
