Can you give an overview of or pointers to critiques? My prior is that Krugman is more likely to by correct than the average crypto person, even after adjusting for interest in and attention to crypto.
In this case, he does not understand how Bitcoin can be a store of value, because it is not backed by a government. How come gold or any other commodity has value? Value it what the market decides, not the government. He obviously did not understand the intrinsic value the technology provides, which previous media of exchange do not provide, such as immutability and full control of funds. He is happy to pass judgment without understanding the technology.
I don't think you understand the definition of intrinsic value -- it has nothing to do with being physical:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/intrinsicvalue.asp
Key quote: "The intrinsic value is the actual value of a company or an asset based on an underlying perception of its true value including all aspects of the business, in terms of both tangible and intangible factors.
A good thought experiment for whether something has intrinsic value is: would <thing> still be useful if nobody else on the planet wanted it? A share in a business would continue paying out dividends, and would absolutely be useful. A dollar bill would be useless (especially if it's an electronic dollar). A bitcoin would also be absolutely useless.