I read it all. It's apparently supposed to be a way for celebrities to extract money from their audience by having them buy into their currency.

If you're satisfied with calling that useful, okay, I guess - to me it's deeply alarming that this is presented as a good example of a useful application of crypto.

In the broader context of crypto demand being driven essentially by digital crime and gambling, there would need to be some seriously glowing example of something good that can be done with it to shift my judgment.

For example, in the early days of Ethereum, I thought it'd be possible at some point to build truly open source, decentralized SaaS, where the deployment happens to the blockchain, and that this in turn would enable open source projects to finance themselves.

I've yet to see an example of this where the crypto aspect isn't a figleaf.

I'm very concerned that people arguing for exciting applications of crypto are involuntarily legitimizing the online crime ecosystem. Crypto in practice seems to lead to a massive transfer of assets to criminals. To an extent where that may end up destabilizing whole countries, given the market cap trajectory.

It doesn’t explain anything. It asserts a lot. Sorry I took the time to critique and give examples as a freelance business communication designer. Effective business communication requires frank feedback, and mine usually isn’t cheap, but if protecting your ego is the goal here, just keep assuming you’re doing everything right and it’s everybody else’s fault it’s not landing.