[ernopp]

It's from Preston Byrne (added this in my original comment).

The reason I think it's relevant is that posts like Palmer's attack only the "scam side" of crypto (the 99%) without acknowledging the "new paradigm" (1%) side

Yes there are scams, yes there are pumps and dumps, yes there are insiders who control too much liquidity. But you also have to do justice to the promise of the tech.

It was not previously possible for anyone with an internet connection to take out a loan via a decentralised protocol (MakerDAO), or exchange assets via a decentralised contract (Uniswap), or have a digital proof of authenticity (NFTs). And all of this without middle-men taking fees, opaque leverage throughout the system (see Archegos) and gating access to only certain participants (the richer half of the world who have a bank account).

These days I tend to send skeptical folk this writeup on the problems with centralised finance, and associated DeFi solutions: https://john-street-capital.medium.com/fintech-3-0-re-archit...

[hanniabu]

Looking forward to the responses handwaiving your comment and saying these aren't real use cases, they don't solve anything, you don't need this stuff unless you're doing illegal activity, tradfi is better, only reason they exist is to better enable scams, [insert any other ignorant argument].

It really is hilarious how similar the naysaying here is to the internet/email says.

[smt88]

If you think NFTs are a proof of authenticity, you deeply misunderstand them and/or the relationship between "digital" and "authentic".