To explain the derision, I don't think the GP makes a good point at all, as crypto-adherents pre-suppose that there's a common acceptance that blockchain currencies are an internet-level breakthrough.
Linked lists are useful. Merkle trees are useful. Blockchain currencies haven't so far proven a single use case they perform more usefully than existing systems.
All that the ICO craze, the NFT craze and the De-Fi craze point to is that this is a solution in search of a problem. The only reason any of the crypto-based versions of those existing concepts (IPOs, collectibles, credit) have been able to accrue funds so far is due to fraud and mania.
De-Fi could someday become useful if someone figures out a de-centralised way to handle unsecured credit, but how do you include trust in an eco-system that is based around a lack of trust? Even if someone solves that problem it won't be because of crypto, it'll be because of whatever novel idea they come up with to meet that specific need.
Anytime a bitcoin video ends up in my YouTube feed I feel like I'm being offered quantum physics lessons by Deepak Chopra.
Anyway, that's why I agree with the alchemy comment.