The New Yorker, as you say, is probably not the place you would expect to find the greatest journalistic minds writing about crypto. It is, however, a place whe

The New Yorker, as you say, is probably not the place you would expect to find the greatest journalistic minds writing about crypto. It is, however, a place where you can often find smart writing on things that are verging from obscurity into the mainstream, and I think this article does do a decent job of communicating the perspective of a layperson like the author who is new to the crypto world. Did you read a different motive of the article than that? Or, did you feel that there was something inaccurate about it? I felt like he did not dismiss Lubin's assertions late in the article about the future of crypto when debating Nouriel Roubini. It seemed pretty balanced to me in just reporting their arguments, and not taking sides, which I think is actually quite rare in mainstream journalism when discussing anything crypto! To me, it didn't seem like there were many assertions made that contradicted the bright future or doom of crypto coming from the prophets or naysayers.