What does a real economist think of cryptocurrencies?

This economist contradicts himself several times. He alternately says cryptocurrencies are and are not a real currency. He also says economists aren't really qualified to analyze the space, which is interesting because he starts off by saying his role as a monetary theorist makes him uniquely qualified to do just that.

> I think of crypto not so much as a currency. You can’t really use it to buy a coffee at Starbucks.They’ve been failing as that kind of currency. I think of them as new kinds of computers, new kinds of legal systems, and new ways of achieving reliable decentralized consensus. So I think they’re most analogous to advances in computing rather than some kind of monetary event.

This is a point I like to make about Crypto. Unless your country's money is terrible, cryptocurrency is a terrible alternative.

It's better to think of the blockchain as an incredibly efficient title transfer technology. If you've ever bought a house, transferring the title is a fairly laborious and expensive process. Crypto makes that process so cheap we're using it on much dumber things. But that doesn't mean the technology itself is a dead end.

Garbage fluff piece where the questions aren't even answered, very shallow conversation

"I think of them as new kinds of computers, new kinds of legal systems, and new ways of achieving reliable decentralized consensus. So I think they’re most analogous to advances in computing rather than some kind of monetary event."