The wiki entry covers some disparate topics but serves as a broad brush pointer to the massively growing gdp share of the financial industry. It is a proxy for the number of redundant financial transactions (where bits are simply shifted around in zero sum re-allocation games for which intermediaries get a cut) to actual economic transactions where something "real" happens.

There is obviously a bit of subjectivity in defining "real" and "useful". There is also an intermediate gray area of so-called risk management (derivatives, securitisation etc) which can easily mutate from useful to disastrous depending on the quality of regulation.

But when I look at the crypto universe (from the ICO era till today) I have no doubt what it resembles...

Presumably capital changing ownership will tend towards ownership by those who can deploy it more productively, so it doesn't seem like bits shifting around is positive evidence that it's value neutral or negative in real terms.

Obviously there are lots of ways this pretty story breaks down, but I think the "just moving bits" reason isn't that strong a criticism.

> zero sum re-allocation games for which intermediaries get a cut

If intermediaries get a cut, wouldn't that make the games negative-sum?

presumably if a transaction is taking place, the parties involved value the state of affairs after the transaction more than they did what came before, so value is being created, even including the transaction cost.