I want crypto to succeed, but I have a hard time seeing the parallel you mentioned. One example benefitted you personally, while the other is a good concept in theory.

In your example of the early internet (too slow to load webpage, to streaming video), you described a direct benefit you experienced personally (you needed to access a piece of content and it got that to you fast)

But when you use crypto, you said it's revolutionary because it "wrenches power from centralized authorities". That is not a direct benefit you experienced personally. That description is a high-level concept.

So, it's hard for me to see the parallel.

Reading that, all I can get out of it is "Do things without people who are experts in that field, try to reinvent their expertise on the fly, and fuck up on the way."

Some of that is just playing with definitions. "Have Internet without an ISP", how? And how does cryptocurrency help?

LOL. You still need middlemen with cryptocurrencies in all those cases because the middleman is now run across computers that don't scale whatsover (hardcoded limit in processing which is the worst type of scaling possible and scaling is the main reason software is a profitable industry). To make matters worse, you have no way of funding the developers to build the software required for the decentralized software outside of "buy our coins and hope they rise in price forever".

How is there still this much FAD in cryptocurrencies considering their terrible scaling technology and economic solutions?

I'd hire a lawyer because I trust their legal knowledge.

So without a bank, who's going to loan you money? Because unless you're donating pennies from hundreds of thousands of people, it's going to be an entity with a fair amount of $CURRENCY, so basically a bank.