[benedictevans]

No, it's a really stupid lie. You can look at all my essays and presentations online.

I've spent some time discussing why people are interested in blockchains as software platforms, and what would be good and bad arguments around that. But I've never suggested anyone buy a token - indeed, I was pretty vocal in pointing to speculative bubbles and silly ideas, like NFTs.

[lorecore]

Here you go:

https://en.cryptonomist.ch/2018/11/01/benedict-evans-cryptoc...

[benedictevans]

Nope. This is the exact quote.

Crypto today has a lot in common with both the internet in 1993 and the internet in 1999. Huge potential with few of the use cases invented yet, combined with froth, scams and delusion. This makes it easier to dismiss (“useless AND a scam!”).

But dismissing crypto as a useless scam is much like looking at Usenet, Cuecat and Boo .com and dismissing the internet. It mistakes applications for the enabling layer.

Looking at crypto and only seeing the scams is like looking at the internet in 1999 and only seeing the bubble.

Looking at crypto and seeing no use cases is like looking at the internet in 1993, when the web was 3% of traffic

Another parallel: 1993 - people complaining the term should be internets, not internet 2018 - people complaining 'that's not what crypto means'

You could argue I was wrong and blockchain's potential never turned into anything much. It actually has become a huge deal as plumbing in the finance industry, but not much else. But so what? This was an interesting tech that hasn't really worked out. Welcome to the tech industry.

[lorecore]

Nope what? You just confirmed the OP’s point. Glad we’re all in agreement.

[nkohari]

I don't think it's fair to consider writing an analysis (even a favorable one) about a topic as _shilling_ for it. It's not like he was pushing shitcoins or minting NFTs.

I have always been (and remain!) bearish on crypto but it absolutely was something that couldn't be ignored a few years ago. Even if you came to the conclusion that it was bunk, there was significant enough fervor that any technologist needed to reckon with their position on it.

For example, lots of engineers proclaimed very loudly that document databases would replace the RDBMs, or that GraphQL was the future of APIs. They were wrong, as it turned out, but only with the wisdom of hindsight.

[lorecore]

He actually was pushing NFTs but has since deleted his tweet: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26434769

[benedictevans]

No, I didn’t. I made my account private and stopped using twitter. And the actual tweet says the opposite - that NFTs would need to develop some kind of cultural grounding for them to become a investment, which they didn’t have at the time and never got, and without that this would just be a speculative bubble, which is exactly what happened.

I made it very clear that I thought NFTs were a speculative bubble. I never suggested anyone should buy any crypto-related instrument. The idea that I was ‘shilling for crypto’ is something you would only say if you’re an idiot, as the OP and a few others on this thread clearly are.

[hansmayer]

I dunno... but those self-quotes sound a lot like at least implying that "missing out on crypto" would be like missing out on early days of Internet. You also seem to try and retrofit "blockchain" instead of "crypto", but these are two different things - blockchain is a technology, crypto is a form of play-money based on that technology, just like it's older brother, the monopoly-money, is based on the technology of paper (but not much else).

[benedictevans]

No, I was using crypto and blockchain as interchangeable terms. I'm aware some people don't, but that's always how any person the space I've spoken to uses them

[hansmayer]

Indeed you did, but that does not make it right. They are not interchangeable. Now again, did you, or did you not promote Bitcoin?

[benedictevans]

No, you have a different opinion about terminology, which ironically is one of the things I noted as pointless in the thread I posted.