On the one extreme, you've got the evangelicals who insist that everybody will benefit from cryptocurrency today and the only reason it hasn't replaced all of modern finance is because of a conspiracy. These people ignore anyone's attempt at a rational counterargument.
On the other extreme you've got people who are very strongly against the idea of cryptocurrencies. They see that tremendous harm can come to individuals who jump into this system unprepared and who aren't aware of the security or privacy implications (for example), because the previous group doesn't admit that there are any. They are also able to see through the greed and the overhype and as a result dismiss Bitcoin for being nothing.
The thing to recognize is that these are both extremes. They both contain some truth, but it feels that the public discourse is largely just a fight between the extremes rather than any meaningful discussion.
If you want to contribute something meaningful to the discussion, be honest. You have some good points in this followup and in your twitter comments, but your opening line is just blatantly dishonest.
> For example, a study of 43 use cases found a 0% success rate
So, apparently nobody is buying drugs with cryptocurrency anymore. Seriously! This line is demonstrated to be blatantly misleading if you give it TEN SECONDS of thought. Did you? In truth, I think you did give it thought, and then you dismissed it because it's a good line that supports the way you want things to be and supports the message you want to push.
> but I merely cited it as an example of why I think the hype is calming down.
You said a misleading thing; own up. Don't downplay it. Nobody expects an apology or anything, but just admit to yourself that it was to some degree dishonest, and think about whether that's really an attribute you want to preserve in your writing and in the way you present yourself, and whether exaggeration which doesn't present itself as such really does anything to advance the discourse.