> Would I review a Ford Motor Vehicle by closely examining how the CEO or marketing team behave, boldly discovering they don't have an incentive to be completel

> Would I review a Ford Motor Vehicle by closely examining how the CEO or marketing team behave, boldly discovering they don't have an incentive to be completely honest, and then assuming they are lying? No. I would ignore all of that and evaluate the vehicle itself. But that's not the case we're running into here. The crypto case is that you're reading reviews from people on the car, but turns out that a lot of people own Ford stock and therefore will probably have a positive bias (conscious or unconscious) for that car. It's not a reason against the technology, but it's a reason to be extra skeptical of the use cases and motivations of people who speak positively about it. > I only hope this place learns to talk in generalities about technology, protocols and economics There's quite a lot of talk about the technology, protocols and economics of crypto tech in HN. The issue is that when you poke around, people haven't actually thought about the use cases they present. Even the simple question "could this be done before and, if so, why isn't it done already?" already takes down a lot of crypto use cases and discussions I see around here. Game resales, multi-game items, digital art, defi loans, federated networks, global identity, consumer-backed media... A lot of people will say crypto can solve those problems without noticing that the problem wasn't the tech. In the end, crypto just adds "distributed and trustless" to databases. Unless the problem being attacked is about centralization and trust (and for most big consumer markets, it almost never is) crypto can't change the situation. > cool, contrarian thing to do on HackerNews (stay poor lmao) See, this is the problem we're having. We can't really trust we're going to have a productive technical discussion with someone that sees crypto as a vessel to "get rich quick" and says things like that.