1) The author is arguing against skeptics who are "infinitely hostile" to crypto because it consists of "100% scams". I don't think many skeptics believe crypto is 100% scams. Most skeptics would say that the use cases are overstated and the incentives to pump-and-dump are so high that an unacceptable rate of scams was inevitable. If you're going to write an article to refute skeptics, refute the actual argument.
2) The author strongly implies that skeptics are skeptical because they have fallen for scams (by "clicking on spam emails"). Insulting the intelligence of your opponent is also not a compelling way to refute an argument. I have always been skeptical, I have never been scammed, and I don't think I'm unique.
3) The author's research found that the scam rate "seemed low." Molly White is probably the person working harder than any other to track this scam rate, and her "grift counter" currently reports losses of over $12 billion.
2) The author strongly implies that skeptics are skeptical because they have fallen for scams (by "clicking on spam emails"). Insulting the intelligence of your opponent is also not a compelling way to refute an argument. I have always been skeptical, I have never been scammed, and I don't think I'm unique.
3) The author's research found that the scam rate "seemed low." Molly White is probably the person working harder than any other to track this scam rate, and her "grift counter" currently reports losses of over $12 billion.
https://web3isgoinggreat.com