The origin of the blockchain itself is far from utopian; the blockchain was explicitly designed to cope with the harsh realities of the darker side of human nature. This is why it has survived for as long as it has. So the message the author is trying to convey, some of it is “not even wrong” (e.g. “living, breathing humans will deploy any conceivable technology for both good and evil…”) and the rest just seems ranty without useful insight.

It’d be nice if they balanced their cynicism by pointing to the ways in which blockchains have solved real problems and improved people’s lives: empowering people to buy life saving medicines on darknet marketplaces, or protect their savings from hyperinflation in Venezuela, or provide censorship resistant publishing to dissidents in authoritarian countries.

Yes it’s important to be honest and realistic about what the technology can accomplish, but it’s also important to be honest and realistic about what the technology *has already* accomplished. By allowing his cynicism to dominate his perspective, the author denies his audience an opportunity to understand why people are excited based on the actual problems solved by blockchains today.

“A few years had to pass between Mosaic 1.0 and the debut of Spotify and streaming Netflix and the iPhone. There’s still plenty of time before we call this round of innovation a wrap.”

Yet apparently that is exactly what the author proposes, considering pinnacle the worst excesses of what current innovation rails against as crucial pivot points.