> Its too early! I think most critics of crypto come into the conversation with a "crypto is bad, and so I must find ways to reinforce this belief", and it's r

> Its too early! I think most critics of crypto come into the conversation with a "crypto is bad, and so I must find ways to reinforce this belief", and it's relatively obvious that the critic doesn't have the perquisite knowledge to craft a critique that can be responded to easily. Specifically, a critic might say "the set A is bad". The critic is under the assumption that the set A is small, perhaps a few items, and they've seen the majority of them. But the "defender" knows that the set is hundreds of thousands of items, but still has only seen a few of them. The critic operates under the assumption of maybe 4/5 items are bad, and the defender is operating under the assumption that 4/100,000,000 are bad. So when a critic asks you to link to projects, there's a problem: even if the defender shows 100 projects, and the critic rejects all of them, then it doesn't change the defender's position, because 104/100,000,000 is still a small survey. Sane "defenders" don't need to disagree with the critics on their points. They can differ primarily in seeing a much, much larger, unexplored search space. If you assume the space has been fully searched, then its safe to stand back and critique. However, many folks conducting the search see much farther than you do, and see the entirely unexplored space as quite large. And so, it’s reasonable for the defender to not want to engage in your risky position, that assumes snake eyes for the next 100,000 dice rolls. If you see how large the unexplored search space is, then it sounds ridiculous to declare the entire thing “done and bad”. It’s the same reason why you may choose not to engage with the flat earther. It’s hard to engage with a position so disconnected from rationality. That said, there’s plenty of people in crypto who are equally disconnected from reality, either because they too only see a small search space, and have declared the contents “good” with little examination, or because they see the large search space and assume all dice rolls will come up as 6’s. Those folks tend to create a cycle. Folks with no opinion see crazy crypto person, and develop into their own crazy anti crypto person. Neither party is acting rational, because both have claimed certainty with extremely little working information. That said, there's other projects that are worth while, here's some to add to your N: - https://strangemood.org https://strangemood.org (decentralized competitor to steam; this is what I work on) - https://www.helium.com https://www.helium.com (incentive layer for the LoRaWAN network) - https://tea.xyz https://tea.xyz (new homebrew) - https://handshake.org/ https://handshake.org/ ("really" decentralized DNS) - (Compound / Aave / Solend) (decentralized loans) > still makes no sense from a product-market fit (storage has 3 metrics to judge by: price, retrieval latency, reliability. Filecoin is order of magnitudes worse than competitiors on all metrics) We use Filecoin and IPFS and have found solutions to these issues typically, and are happy "customers". It's also worth noting that we _can't_ use S3, or traditional cloud hosting, which therefore adds a new metric for us to judge storage on: decentralization.