The author thought the answer was yes: "For now, I’m sold. I think there’s a there there. I honestly think blockchain can change the world — and for the better. Which, I’m sorry to say, makes it pretty hard to shut up about it. My sincerest apologies to all for whom the entire subject is “coated in oil of tedium,” especially my beloved and longsuffering wife."

My personal opinion: currently overvalued, but cryptocurrencies have some merit in medium-large p2p payments, online gaming, and digital asset trading

> Which, I’m sorry to say, makes it pretty hard to shut up about it.

True. It is hard to ignore. (It will get harder for most). The ones that are very dangerous and must be avoided are the crypto people hyping only a single coin to do everything, despite its well documented drawbacks and red flags.

As the author of the article mentions further, they are also in these investments themselves.

> My personal opinion: currently overvalued, but cryptocurrencies have some merit in medium-large p2p payments, online gaming, and digital asset trading

Exactly. Some cryptocurrencies are more better for fast low fee P2P payments than others, and most often easily conflate 'Bitcoin' to mean 'all' cryptocurrencies, and that every single one of them is environmentally bad. which is completely false.

Cryptocurrencies in general are here to stay. Some will be used for several use-cases and some will just wither away.

Except for all the headlines where this doesn't apply. (see here for data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...)

So to conclude: 'Betteridge's Law of Headlines' is a useless concept.

> Except for all the headlines where this doesn't apply.

In this case it perfectly applies and this 'headline' can be reduced to a simple 'Yes' or 'No' answer.

But of course, as expected having nothing to counter with other than stating something from Wikipedia.

Low-quality post.

Care to explain why it is 'low quality'?

Does 'Betteridge's Law of Headlines' lead to truth?