[cornholio]

The burden of proof is on the crypto promoters to demonstrate ability to create wealth. This was not the case up to now, the only thing crypto produced were speculative assets that have very little legitimate uses.

For example, major cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin aim to replace state issued fiat currencies with privately issued currencies that have limited/fixed supply and no connection to the real economy. That's insanely stupid and detrimental. They also aim to preserve privacy when teleporting billions across continents - a dangerous and anti-social feature no society needs.

The vast majority of ICOs and DeFi projects are just a way to do regulatory arbitrage - issue unregulated or lightly regulated securities that are excelent for speculation, but have close to non-existent real world utility. The same for NFTs, completely fictional wealth creation that was powered solely by the speculative search for greater fools.

The field as a whole, despite probably hundreds of billions in real wealth dumped into it by now, produces close to zero value for society, or even negative if we consider the impact of resource burn and facilitation of money laundry. It has spiraled into a pure speculative mania that destroys the lives of many retail investors: https://twitter.com/coinfessions

[everfree]

> The burden of proof is on the crypto promoters to demonstrate ability to create wealth.

For crypto to be financially successful, strictly speaking it doesn't need to create wealth, it only needs to attract it.

Plenty of profitable businesses are arguably a net negative to society - tobacco, gambling, private prisons, ad agencies, data brokers - but that doesn't make them ponzi schemes.

[cornholio]

The tobacco industry produces net wealth: products people are willing to buy and enjoy. You might morally disagree with the premise of that need, addiction, but nonetheless, in our current society tobacco products are intrinsically valuable.

Speculative crypto assets are not intrinsically valuable, they have no desirable properties other than the ability to make you rich in the future by selling them to someone else. If investors would be guaranteed their crypto assets will not appreciate, the vast majority would dump them immediately. (so called stable coins are the exception, but they only make sense as a component of the crypto ecosystem, people need them as enablers of speculation).

You might argue that the need to hope for quick financial success is a basic human need, which crypto fulfills, so it does indeed provide value for its users; but by then it's indistinguishable from classic Ponzi schemes or gambling. It's in fact even more toxic than gambling, since it disguises as a form of wealth creation and legitimate investment, as opposed to a game of poker which every investor can recognize as zero sum.

[acdha]

You could define it as value from something other than recruiting/resale – for example, tobacco has real negatives but it wouldn’t be such a common killer if its buyers didn’t feel it made their lives better, at least at some point. Cryptocurrency as a mechanism for exchange could have that as an alternative to, say, PayPal or Western Union but nobody gets aa excited as we’ve seen over saving a couple points on infrequent transactions.

[rosnd]

> This was not the case up to now, the only thing crypto produced were speculative assets that have very little legitimate uses.

You're being straight up dishonest. Darknet Markets have been operating for over a decade now, they obviously have tons of legitimate uses and have created a plenty of wealth.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Darknet Markets have been operating for over a decade now, they obviously have tons of legitimate uses and have created a plenty of wealth

If the only utility of crypto is in facilitating illegal transactions, then prima facie anyone in crypto should be charged with money laundering.