The problem is they will pop, and then come back. They are like a resilient strain of disease. Each time people lose faith in them they develop new ideas and arguments for why they are the future. They aren't the future, they are deeply flawed ponzi-schemes, this is obvious. But we better find out what the future is before they start converting the gullible masses to a currency that is less secure in many ways that is swept under the rug. People are getting hurt by being swept up in cryptocurrency mania; and its not going to end anytime soon. There is talk of China developing new digital currencies(or adopting bitcoin) for stronger population control. There are innovative things happening here, its not all bad, but some of it is clearly evil.
>They aren't the future, they are deeply flawed ponzi-schemes, this is obvious.
By definition, they are not ponzi schemes. None of your claims are obvious, and implying otherwise is disingenuous.
>But we better find out what the future is before they start converting the gullible masses to a currency that is less secure in many ways that is swept under the rug.
Ah yes the "gullible masses", and the wise men and women who know better.
How about we respect other people as adults who have a right to buy whatever they want with their own money and stop trying to treat them like sheep that need to be protected from their own gullibility. Your presumptions of knowing what's best for them, to the point where you'd like them to be denied the option of buying them, are extremely condescending.
No, it's just that the folks railing against it sound like sour grapes. If you want to pick a convincing analogy, do so. Calling it a Ponzi scheme doesn't fit and makes it sound like you're more interested in being contrarian than making a substantive point.
> Each time people lose faith in them they develop new ideas and arguments for why they are the future.
You mean just like after the 1929 stock market crash we just improved stock trading? Or after dotcom crash we became more serious about evaluating usefulness of services? Or after various mortgage issues we introduced controls for known issues?
I feel like it's similar to any other huge system. There are issues with it. We prevent some behaviours and provide incentives for others. We don't lose faith in stock market and burn it to the ground.
Look into the fees charged by VC and private equity, and how private equity, in particular, has lobbied themselves into a position where they can be opaque and hold a very dominant position relative to their limiteds before you paint ICOs as sketchy, bubbly, and dangerous. There are downsides to the way many investment vehicles work in theory and practice. ICOs could be a salutary form of competition.
Bubbles are inevitable. If you want to see a great historical example, read up on the South Sea Company of the 18th century. The charlatans are the same throughout time, just varying their methods slightly
