If you notice, the primary arguments against blockchain and crypto require holding it to a standard higher than any asset class in existence.

Its a mixture of “I don't respect this market and thats the only actual distinction” along with “I have no idea these criticisms are present in actual currencies as well as the stock market and commodities spot markets and credit market and derivatives market and collectibles market”

Eventually they move the goal post so far that they are giving actual relevant criticisms of blockchain technology, like scalability concerns

And then they get flipped into realizing they can actually contribute to the solution and spread awareness

And then in a few short years they have enough clout to raise capital in the space

Not everyone is an uninformed cynic. I founded a crypto gambling startup and advised and managed ICOs for dozens of companies and syndicates.

Most economic activity in Defi is unregulated gambling, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

> Not everyone is an uninformed cynic.

There are relevant criticisms of the space, but the relevant ones are exclusively inside the space and are distinctly not irreconcilable as it is permissionless to build or advocate for consensus changes to implement something that was built.

The external criticisms lack nuance and masquerade their observations as absolute limitations.

..... Honestly have no idea what you're saying. I'm actively involved in the Compound community contributing "inside", but I don't think that matters. Outside criticism isn't automatically invalid just because it comes from outside.

> The external criticisms lack nuance and masquerade their observations as absolute limitations.

What percentage of defi assets are used for the purposes you described vs speculation? It's difficult to analyze rigorously but I could give you a lower bound on speculation by looking at interday altcoin movement on makerdao and compound. I think it's completely fair to characterize defi as "predominantly speculation", which I've editorialized into "unregulated gambling".

> I think it's completely fair to characterize defi as "predominantly speculation", which I've editorialized into "unregulated gambling".

You replied to my other comment, so this is exhibit A of a useless higher standard levied exclusively on the blockchain space, without acknowledging every other asset class.

Even with you not considering that a problem, and congratulations for that, the point in caring deflects away from what is happening and every asset class in existence.

In currencies, M0 is the small sliver of the supply use for goods and services, with the entire M1, M2, MB all used for speculation and is largely illiquid.

In stocks, credit, derivatives and commodities the same distribution is seen.

Its not odd for cryptoassets to have the same phenomenon occurring.

The interesting thing is just the overlapping feature set of all other asset classes at once, as well as the additional unique nature of cryptoassets.

The DeFi space in particular is converting non-interest bearing assets into interest bearing ones. That has market traction, and it is permissionless and of unlimited size, caveat emptor and that's a personal choice which has nothing to do with the viability of the space.

Decentralized lending is ~100% used right now for taking leveraged positions. Interest is paid because people have different beliefs about the value of the leveraged asset. I call that gambling. It's a personal choice if you went to call it something different.

I don't draw distinctions between negative expected value table games and positive expected value financial games, and by that standard Mortgages and insurance is gambling and there is nothing wrong with that.

My point is that the nomenclature isn't useful because its not different than other asset classes, but absolutely is used as an indictment against this asset class and market. Whether you and I are personally pragmatic about it as a personal choice or not.