Whether one agrees or disagrees, this is at least a coherent, well-written argument. Those are rare enough in crypto that it deserves credit on that basis alone.

It seems, though, like the author is prematurely dismissing a large and evolving sector of the crypto space. No rational investor thinks that every project is going to succeed in exactly its current form. Improvements will continue, and the projects that ultimately become mainstream household names will have developed a long way past today's versions. In that regard, the author's criticisms have merit regarding projects as they exist right now, but the question is really how polished can we reasonably expect such new ideas to be at this point? Being a work in progress is not the same thing as being fundamentally 'ill-suited' or a failure.

If final judgement is rendered solely based on where we are today then, frankly, all of crypto is a failure. That's a bit short-sighted, no?