Agree that it would be more insightful if specific reasons were given rather than generic fallacies. I think we need to be even more specific is in the type of

Agree that it would be more insightful if specific reasons were given rather than generic fallacies. I think we need to be even more specific is in the type of cryptocurrencies discussed (i.e proof-of-work protocol brings to mind environmental concerns in a way that proof-of-stake does not). This is just speculation, but it's possible that the frame of mind they look at crypto is an asset made "out of thin air" that does not do anything inherently useful in the physical world. Yes, we use gold as currency, but at least it's a good conductor and doesn't oxidize. We can value a company by the amount of goods it can produce in a year. It's harder to make the same case for crypto, whose value is more ethereal (it's stored as bits and bytes rather than a coin in your wallet). It's possible this is what they're thinking. Crypto will be valuable as long as we as a society think it's so and have the infrastructure to support it. If we enter a nuclear winter, out goes the crypto market, and we'll be left exchanging copper pieces.