It's a counterexample, not an attempt to prove equivalence. Banks-as-middlemen allow reversing just about anything on the basis of firm handshakes, with little regard to the wishes of the parties they stand in for. Taking "reverse" to mean "do it again in the other direction" and "reversible" to mean "untrusted parties delegate control to intermediaries who trust each other", both of which are true here, means it's perfectly compatible with crypto. It does render any advantages moot, but avoiding the latter is typically the goal, and this linguistic sleight of hand obscures it.

For the actual topic, I don't have any respect for these ICOs/mints/[newest renaming], they're shameless cash grabs with 98% marketing and 2% upwork-tier code. However, you can burn a million quid; I don't think it's a big deal that you can burn 34 million in digital currency due to extreme negligence.