If you end up being wrong, and crypto becomes a globally ubiquitous economic backbone, how will you rationalize having been incorrect in your present view?

You're a long-term hacker news community member. Like all of us, you pride yourself on the rational exploration of technology. Does "They've had more than a decade to find a single usecase other than crime, and they haven't" strike you as a particularly rigorous argument? Why would a decade be the magic number? Might there be more objective or intrinsic metrics of realization of potential than a set number of years? For example, Ethereum invented the crypto app layer and launched eight years ago, so perhaps ten years is both arbitrary and incorrect?

You seem to be somebody who is certain that crypto is- paraphrasing- useless for anything but crime. Given your conviction in this view, what up-to-date evidence do you have? For example, how would you contrast the capabilities of modern non-blockchain payment systems, like FedNow or India's UPI, versus the emerging network of public blockchains? If you can't answer the question, maybe your strong conviction is unjustified?

It seems that many technologists in the HN community have been whipped into an anti-crypto frenzy by crypto's many scams and now, blinded by rage and disgust, are unable to pursue any semblance of the kind of rational inquiry that otherwise is a fixture in their intellectual lives.