> They repeat the same scam-artist lies, crypto is somehow an innovation in "trust", somehow more "efficient" than existing infrastructure, somehow "smart contr

> They repeat the same scam-artist lies, crypto is somehow an innovation in "trust", somehow more "efficient" than existing infrastructure, somehow "smart contracts" are more reliable than actual contracts. Things "become possible". I can't read the article through the paywall to read any clarification on these points, but some of what you mentioned in that list above is arguably true. * Say what you will about crypto, but it is an unbelievable accounting invention and innovation in trust. Crypto the technology is distinct from centralized exchanges. * In terms of electricity usage and transaction speed, most crypto might not be very efficient (yet), but what efficiency are they talking about? If crypto-adoption can replace many bankers and finance employees because the network automatically does a lot of their day-to-day tasks, then there's an argument that crypto is highly efficient in some areas. * Are smart contracts more reliable than traditional contracts? Well, that's highly debatable: you have the existing legal system that can sometimes be used to enforce contracts, but not always. But if the conditions of a smart contract are met, there's probably no conceivable force on Earth short of either a gargantuan cyberattack or the electricity going down network-wide that can stop it from executing. Sure, you might argue that smart contracts have numerous potential flaws (unreliable data, bugs in the contract, no possibility of rollback, etc) but there are good counterpoints, improvements in these areas, and some similar flaws in existing contracts. For instance: people intentionally cheat on traditional contracts all of the time and just dare others to sue: that's much harder with smart contracts that automatically execute once the agreed upon conditions are met.