GP does not "get to decide" but hopes to persuade. One possible grim future is that home solar panels do not displace fossil fuels, but instead suffer the same fate as GPUs: eaten up by cryptocurrencies which produce negligible economic value but have a bottomless appetite through their role as a speculative investment. This is terrible for the climate. How do we avoid it?
Find a better solution to the issue that crypto currencies are trying to solve.
Bitcoin is seen as (among other things) a hedge against inflation, a way to quickly send money internationally, and a way to spend and receive money without needing other people's permission to do so.
Ethereum is seen as a way to create programs that runs in "the cloud" but not in a cloud that is under the control of any one group, and a way to create new organizations and consensus making systems that are designed from the group up based on internet assumptions (information is quick and essential free to transmit and the importance of geographic location is minimized).
I am saying seen to not try to keep it more neutral. You and I may disagree about whether ETH and BTC achieve or make progress on any of these goals, but I believe it's very clear that many people THINK that they do.
If you would like to get rid of ETH and BTC, you'd need to find a way to solve (or are perceived to solve) these problems better than ETH and BTC.
GP does not "get to decide" but hopes to persuade. One possible grim future is that home solar panels do not displace fossil fuels, but instead suffer the same fate as GPUs: eaten up by cryptocurrencies which produce negligible economic value but have a bottomless appetite through their role as a speculative investment. This is terrible for the climate. How do we avoid it?