I think the article is mainly for a bunch of skeptics to dunk on both the author for writing the piece and the NYT for publishing it. As the introduction says:

I think the article is mainly for a bunch of skeptics to dunk on both the author for writing the piece and the NYT for publishing it. As the introduction says: > Here, a group of around fifteen cryptocurrency researchers and critics have done what the New York Times apparently won't. Between this and the title, I assume they're mainly referring to the perceived lack of editing that went in to the original. I think it's pretty safe to say that this was mainly written for the amusement of crypto skeptics (which it does a good job of, imo) and to serve as an example of how to identify irresponsible crypto reporting, rather than to actually convince anyone.