> Not real-world projects. As discussed in the introduction, I am only discussing projects that have real-world effects outside of cryptocurrency balances. Gemini, Circle as exchanges, and Algorand as a Blockchain implementation, don’t qualify here – they don’t actually add real-world utility other than moving tokens around.
Interesting take. These are very different "projects", but I don't see why they don't qualify as "having real-world effects".
Gemini and Circle are corporations that provide stablecoins backed by USD reserves (gUSD and USDC). The tokens these companies have created can be moved around on various blockchains without an intermediary and used to pay for goods and services.
Algorand is a blockchain protocol that can be used to build decentralized applications (similar to Ethereum). There are many "real-world" projects built on Algorand, for example lofty.ai (tokenized real-estate investing).
I don't see how the author defines "real-world utility" and why Algorand, Gemini and Circle wouldn't qualify. It seems like the author is trying to cherry-pick a few failed blockchain projects in an attempt to smear the whole industry.