If a new technology comes out, and tons of people on HN all evaluated it and found tons of fundamental flaws, readers generally engage and are appreciative of it. They're glad for the analysis, their glad they didn't end up using it on their job and all the problems it will cause. They see those same problems and realize a different approach is needed because that tech is flawed. Sharing of concerns is seen as a positive, and appreciated by the community.
However when that same process happens with one specific tech, the exact opposite response occurs. People appear to become upset when others helpfully point out the fundamental flaws. And while I can't guarantee intent behind that response, the fundamental difference to me appears to be that those who don't like to hear the criticisms are those who would personally profit if the tech worked out. Not exactly unbiased observers.
If HN criticized some Big Tech company's new tech, and the people defending it and ignoring the arguments and responding in HN saying "that flaw isn't true", or "stop being so negative" were the PR people the work for Big Tech, the HN response would be similar.
Reasonable criticism on HN usually leads to appreciation and understanding. Reasonable criticism of crypto, leads to people who would profit getting upset and complaining about "the negativity" and "why don't the just believe."
And all of that is without even getting into the issue of all the negative externalities of crypto that most tech doesn't have. It's not only that its impacting those in it, but via fraud, electricity, gpus, poor capital allocation,... it will have significant negative real world impact.