Ugh - not a fan of declaring everything you disagree with as "evil".

I think NFTs, along with the vast majority (but not all) crypto, are total bullshit, but I also accept (a) I could be totally wrong in this, in which case, my loss, and (b) offering rails to sell these items doesn't strike me as "evil" in the slightest.

The magnitude of the carbon footprint alone is not enough to hit the threshold?

How about the obvious breeding ground for scams, and the tacit approval by the community because all that money (assets) flows to the top?

There are more reasons, too.

Just because you don't understand someone's argument doesn't mean you should trivialize it.

On the carbon footprint: Ethereum will adopt proof of stake soon, of course you can trade NFTs on other chains but at least there’s an effort to drop the carbon footprint to very low levels. That’s more than you can say about most economic activities that have a large carbon footprint.

The scams seems like a very weak reason. The internet is full of scams, is the internet evil?

Ethereum has had "proof of stake" as a goal for multiple years, with no obvious evidence that it is any closer to implemented today than it was 3 years ago. I will believe Ethereum to be proof of stake when I see it.

The "kiln" testnet is currently running and will carry out the merge in the next few days, which is the final step before the existing proof of work testnets transitioned to proof of stake and then the Ethereum mainnet itself. I think that counts as "obvious evidence".

> with no obvious evidence that it is any closer to implemented today than it was 3 years ago.

Apart from a working PoS beacon chain, several multi client dev nets and the last merge testnet before the real merge (barring major bugs) currently running

Evil is not an argument. It is a trivialization itself.

One can argue that it's a bad thing (evil is still too strong a word I think.) But that's not what's going on here.

They're not encouraging crypto anymore than a liquor store encourages alcoholism. The liquor store may lower the barrier to entry for obtaining a bottle of alcohol, but it's ultimately the alcoholics choice to enter the store and purchase it.

Offering a product is not evil or immoral. It may be amoral but that's not the same as immoral. Ultimately the market decides what stays and goes except in extraordinary circumstances.

"Offering a product is not evil or immoral" - this is the motto of my "Heroin for kids" brand. Selling a ponzi scheme may not be illegal, but it seems plausibly immoral.

Yeah, but in this case Stripe is one step removed morally as well. I don't see this as materially different from them being a payment processor for an online liquor store or a pyramid seller like LuLaRoe.

You could say that a payment processor should morally screen their clients in general, but that seems like a stronger and not-so-reasonable statement. They do prohibit certain kinds of businesses, but I think the bar for that is very high and likely related to chargeback concerns and such.

Both would fall under Stripe's list of prohibited businesses.

Oh yes, the "If I didn't sell them X, someone else would have done" excuse.

Plenty of places do regulate liquor stores heavily for this reason.

You are conflating logistics with morality. The market will provide argument may make sense logistically but that does not mean its morality.

Logistics is something else entirely.

Any consumer driven market is strongly indicative of its consumers morality, people just don't like to admit it.

What I meant to say was just because people want something doesn't mean its moral to provide it. People want tobacco, doesn't mean we have to make it super easy and addictive for them.

Distributing drugs is punished much more harshly than individual consumption.

> Offering a product is not evil or immoral

So weapons-grade uranium, chemical weapons, payday loans, extended car warranties, life insurance, habit-forming painkillers, etc are all fine?

As a society, we have decided that some products are indeed unacceptable / immoral.

Aside from the WMD's, it's not the products themselves that you likely have grievances with, but the advertising behind them.

Payday loans, while a bad reputation, can truly help someone out in a pinch who has no other options - but often they're not presented to be as abhorrently predatory as they usually are.

Extended car warranties are pushed by the car salesman who tell the consumers that they need it when they almost definitely do not.

Life insurance is actually a wise investment for some, not even sure why you put that on the list.

Pain killers provide an essential service when used properly, the vast majority of consumer don't form a habit, and those that do were almost certainly not told by their doctor or pharmacist the potential addictive nature of the chemicals.

All those products are, in my opinion, completely fine. What's not fine is the often fraudulent advertising required to sell those products. But that's a different discussion.

It was also safer to sell shovels in san francisco than it was to go to the Klondike and dig for gold. the analogy is correct.