> But any time businesses say: "We support cryptocurrencies like XRP", plain people hear first 3 words, and become more likely to invest into cryptocurrencies, which are statistically most likely to be Bitcoin or Ethereum.
Maybe that is why Stripe (a business that needs no introduction) made an investment in Stellar, ditched 'Bitcoin' for payments and opted to use greener alternatives? Even with them using something like Polygon that still did not stop them either.
Not all of these cryptocurrencies are the same as Bitcoin, and Ethereum and at least the latter is open to moving to greener alternatives to mining.
> So if you care about environment, or lack of ransomware, or anything else the OP talks about, the responsible thing is to reject all cryptocurrencies. The small amount of innovation and financial tools provided by XRP, Stellar etc.. is not worth the huge negative effects from bitcoin and ethereum and all the other PoW, [pseudo-]anonymous cryptocurrencies.
Perhaps one should also reject and stop driving any vehicle on the road because there are too many diesel and petrol cars emitting CO2 and not that many electric vehicles on the roads today, such that: 'The small amount of innovation in these electric cars is not worth the huge negative downsides from lorries, buses, trucks and all the other petrol and diesel vehicles.'
It does not make any sense to generalise against others and outright reject all of them just because the most used one somehow also happens to be the most inefficient. It's the same reason why many companies rejected Bitcoin over alternatives for on-chain payments, especially for Stripe's use-case as well.
It is also why sweeping generalisations really does not work.