Putting monetisation before use case, rather than the traditional use case before monetisation, leads to several perversions: - It turns practitioners into "re

Putting monetisation before use case, rather than the traditional use case before monetisation, leads to several perversions: - It turns practitioners into "relentless door-to-door salesmen" as you put it, fanatical commission-based salesmen, which makes any kind of rational discussion about pros and cons etc. impossible. - It allows you to monetise without having anything to monetise, which has drawn in the scammers and fraudsters on an unprecedented scale. - It offers no incentive to working solutions. All the ICOs failed because they got the money up front with no obligation to deliver anything, so even the small number that weren't out and out scams ended up effectively becoming scams. Spend any time in the space, and you'll realise the gap between what is promised and what is possible is often insurmountable, but the gap isn't important, because you just need to convince enough people that what you are trying to do is possible for long enough to get rich quickly. - It offers no incentive to more efficient solutions. Why use existing fast, free and low energy money transfers, for example, when you can make slow, expensive money transfers that use up 5% of the world's electricity but make a handful of people rich in the process? There are very few cryptocurrencies which have genuine legitimate use cases, and the small number that arguably do are always worse in every way than what they replace, but they are still attractive and gain traction because they can get a small number of people rich quickly. - It doesn't look like it'll go away. While putting use case before monetisation means something without a use case will wither away, with monetisation before use case it could go on burning up trillions more programming hours and countless other resources indefinitely without ever finding a genuine legitimate use case.