Of course, there is the counter position that we should always be aware of what the mechanics of the system really are, not what we imagine them to be, not what we want them to be, but what reality has them being. No amount of wishful thinking, positive vibes, or belief in the future will change the facts on the ground.

For instance, I just spent two days actually working with the data on the steem blockchain itself, looking at the distribution of power. If your concern is the central banks who have a serious hand, alongside national governments, guiding fiat currency – then you really, really should hate at least our most local example of blockchain currencies.

Perhaps your last paragraph should read:

"When the familiar and overly upbeat tone, surging into the blockchain, please stop to see reality."

No bright future is ushered in at the hands of beloved acolytes. No, bright futures come in when the most ardent opponents, whose criticism has proved prescient, are listened to and their comprehension integrated, until the point that even they have to shrug and concede that the facts on the ground are working.

This is actually a significant problem in cryptocurrency journalism, as it stands, from my perspective. It only has two modes: rah-rah rosy tinted optimism or critical-failure FUD pessimism. There is very little actual analysis occurring within that space, with proper criticism, and what little that there is often gets classified by the crypto cultists as critical-failure FUD. No criticism can be allowed. Only flights to the moon can be imagined.

Maybe I just come from a part of the intellectual world where a little more rigor is considered good for the eventual product. After all, in software design or mechanical engineering, if something can't be criticized, the next step is for it to fall apart while someone's using it in a very critical way. That goes a fair step beyond just "someone loses some money," and well into "someone loses their life."

I would agree. Optimism is the easier route. It's always been the easier route. It's also the route that will get you in trouble the fastest, that will lose you your money, that could get you killed, that makes a mess of everything.

I'm a little more interested in seeing what the facts are, talking about what the facts are, and making good decisions based on the facts.

This might explain why I had such a lousy run at journalism.

Proper risk assessment. Due diligence. A critical view. The ability to project behavior based on past data. An understanding of how mechanisms enforce and reinforce behaviors.

These are the things we need in discussion of cryptocurrency lot more than we do optimism.