Core thesis is that even if crypto has no use cases now it will have big ones in the future. By its nature this is a very difficult claim to invalidate as it is so unspecific. One can allude to a variety technologies that were somehow unpromising at the start and claim that crypto is analogous.
The key aspect is any evaluation must be a) specifics about the time frame in which compelling use cases and adoption would show up b) more detailed examination of past use case -- was it really the case that people dismissed them or did not believe in their promise (at least at this stage in the technological development).
More interestingly what examples are there of technology that "failed", especially technology for which bold claims were made at the time?
See this tweet from Kara Swisher https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1528533392266076160 in context of this thread https://twitter.com/agraham999/status/1528516401039675393
Last time I checked people had choice and this offered a range of investments. Also crypto is by no means over. It’s like early internet. Sorry if that bothers you but it is so
And see responses like this one https://twitter.com/Fintech_Brennan/status/1528798432378372106:
"like the early internet"
NO I've been on the internet (the ARPAnet originally) since 1979. Every protocol developed for the internet (from TCP/IP onward) was developed in response to actual needs to address real use cases. Nobody pitched the internet as a way to make money.
Mark Cuban (but this time about e.g. early networking)
My 1st company did LAN/WAN custom software and integrations. Back then we argued about Token Ring, ARCNet, Ethernet and others, and the OpSystems from Novell, Banyan, Microsoft and others. You prob don't know any of this. The same will happen with Blockchain.