What may be viewed as 'huge lack of knowledge' may actually be in fact a huge understanding of a different knowledge base.
Those 'in the know' folks that watch past performance comparing price of gold to BTC 10 years ago and that the 'currency' is seemingly private, might do well to consider some of the opposing knowledge, and research for themselves such issues as:
ISO20022, Tier 3 Assets, RV, fractional-reserve bankstering, fiat Central bankstering and the so-called FED
Great Awakening, and how it relates to Wall Street AND BTC
NESARA and GESARA
That there are PM-backed crypto and non-PM-backed crypto (BTC)
The shadowy creator of BTC, and how it could very well be CIA money laundering, with the cover of good and decent folks trading a portion of it
Sorry, I was unclear. To clarify, the 'huge lack of knowledge' that I was referring to specifically was Nate Anderson's (his Twitter is the linked article) knowledge of Michael Saylor and MicroStrategy, not bitcoin.
He claims Saylor isn't "qualified to manage a gumball machine", even though he's run MicroStrategy for 33 years. Maybe bitcoin is the wrong call for a balance sheet asset for a publicly traded company, but Saylor has made no secret about what he's doing, and everyone investing in MicroStrategy is either on board or was given the option to exit. They're not victims.
There are lots of bitcoin critics who know a lot about the subject, and I'm not saying otherwise. Often, this criticism falls into a couple of categories:
*Erroneously amalgamating bitcoin's usefulness/reputation with more questionable aspects of crypto, such as NFTs, algorithmic stablecoins, or DAOs
*Criticism of the speed of the network, and downplaying upgrades like Lightning as "hacks"
*The obligatory "bitcoin is worthless but the blockchain technology is very exiting" canard (Buffet, Gates, Dimon)
*Monetarists who don't believe in any type of private money
This list isn't exhaustive, but most of the time I'm seeing these criticisms from people who appear to have done at least a little homework. I find it best to just ignore the "bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme" critics who don't really add much to the discussion. Just by definition, even if bitcoin is a scam, it's not a Ponzi scheme. Maybe a pump and dump scheme (like many ICOs clearly are), but not a Ponzi scheme. But there's also really good reasons it's not a pump and dump scheme either.
The shadowy creator of BTC, and how it could very well be CIA money laundering, with the cover of good and decent folks trading a portion of it.
I know a couple of bitcoin whales and early adopters (bought in circa 2011) who believe there's an intelligence agency foundation for bitcoin (although their bet is NSA, not CIA), although they feel it was a rogue project by "good guys" within the intelligence infrastructure who wanted to build something empowering.
They also think Satoshi is probably 3 people; one who wrote the white paper, one who wrote the code, and one who created the cryptography infrastructure.