> 1) The author is arguing against skeptics who are "infinitely hostile" to crypto because it consists of "100% scams". I don't think many skeptics believe cr

> 1) The author is arguing against skeptics who are "infinitely hostile" to crypto because it consists of "100% scams". I don't think many skeptics believe crypto is 100% scams. Most skeptics would say that the use cases are overstated and the incentives to pump-and-dump are so high that an unacceptable rate of scams was inevitable. If you're going to write an article to refute skeptics, refute the actual argument. The more aggressive skeptical argument is that cryptocurrencies can be looked at as a banking system with no government backstop at all, which are vulnerable to a systemic bank panic and run the system -- creating contagion effects that will ultimately knock down all the dominoes. Financial systems are all vulnerable to the fact that they are not stable systems and so they all need circuit breakers and need automatic measures in place to backstop the system in the event of a panic (critics of the argument that I'm making will point out that doesn't produce any certainty of stability, but they miss the point that those measures do make the system more stable). Without those, they'll definitely hit a systemic panic and will unravel sooner rather than later.