My comment has little to do with the number of possible comparisons, and everything to do with the nature of this specific list of bear cases.

It’s inevitable that people who miss the fundamental point of a new technology — and who still think within the frame of current technological and economic dynamics — will write ad nauseam about how technologies from the new paradigm confer no benefit over the way things are done now, in the context of how things are done now. That was the whole point of the comment, and is a universal human pattern.

It’s a natural process, and also why technological laggards exist in the first place. We need people to question the wisdom and utility of new technologies. My point, which is far more dull when you make me spell it out, is that the author’s very act of writing predictions of this type underscores the utility of a new class of technologies that will allow for us to begin to hold such predictions accountable. And that’s just 1 tiny family of use cases in the Cambrian explosion of exploration happening right now.

And that’s what the author (and it seems you) fail to recognize. The vast majority of species that have ever lived are dead. The vast majority of companies ever created have failed. That’s why it’s so easy to make bear cases, and so much less valuable than actually trying to explore newly opened frontiers for niches that unlock new forms of human value.

What is obvious to me, and so many others, is that this family of distributed, trustless, and censorship-resistant technologies marks the beginning of a new paradigm for representing and communicating human value.

By all means, let’s check back in 10 years from now and see which of these perspectives has stood the test of time.