Crypto Winter, or Crypto Ice Age?

If you're all about Second layer scaling, why not just use existing second layers like VISA? If you're transacting via a trusted second layer to provide scaling, you might as well have that as a layer over the dollar, or gold, or other stable asset.

With gambling, unless it's illegally rigged, you know your expected value will be say $0.90 for every $1 you put in.

However, in return, there is a possibility that you may have a one in million chance of getting back $100 for the $1 you put in.

Crypto, on the other hand, is a Ponzi scheme. It has no internal value and the current owners of crypto are paid entirely through the money brought in by the future owners of crypto.

Now, to be completely fair, I don't think the majority of crypto backers perceive it as a Ponzi scheme. There were many people working in the space (maybe even the overwhelming majority, although that's unlikely to be true anymore), who actually believed that Bitcoin had real value because it could become a real currency. Similarly, there are people who actually believe that Smart Contracts, and NFTs are actual useful technologies.

The problem, however, is that

(a) none of those technologies have panned out, possibly because blockchain simply does not solve the problems people actually face...it solves the problem of "What if the entity who owns the database we are recording our transactions in is unreliable". In practice, this does not seem to be a major problem at all, and further, blockchain appears to be a terrible way to solve this problem.

(b) Even if the technologies are useful, the limited tokens and the fact that they are largely hoarded by early adopters, simply serves to enrich those early adopters, which drastically reduces the utility of any crypto based technologies for future users, the ones who are actually using the technology. Crypto tokens are an implicit tax on technology. It would be like if Google was invented, but to use Google you necessarily had to pay $0.10 every search, but that cost is ridiculously dynamic, often jumping up to $1/search as well. Google would never take off and it would impose an insane tax on everyone else, and society as a whole.

The latter is why crypto in its current form isn't just a successful/unsuccessful tech, its an actively society damaging technology.

I think the tech companies are relevant because they pivoted to find useful applications on top of that basic infrastructure, which the hundreds of blockchain companies have failed to do. AOL made millions even even people were held up by dialup and other limitations, for example, because things like chat were popular and low bandwidth.

The early internet comparisons are complicated by the history of computing – adoption was slow when computers filled a large room and cost millions, for example - but I think that has a similar story. Even when a PC cost as much as a car and you were looking at 300 bps modems on phone lines billed by the hour, people found things worth paying for and there were profitable companies with fairly large subscriber bases by the late 1970s. There were people who met online and were grandparents before smartphones became common!

In contrast, blockchains were globally available on day one with no constraints other than their design limitations. There’s no problem which you could point to like a telecom monopoly, the severe hardware limitations prior to the mid-90s, etc. which would keep popular usage low.

Another option that is often very convenient is the "Lastschrift", I can simply grant a company permission to withdraw money from my account. The protections for the customer are very strong with this, I can revert any withdrawal without any reason, so this is essentially no risk for me.

You may be thinking of Ethereum and any other “crypto” claiming to be “Web 3”, where they want to store and run entire websites on their distributed database. But that’s not Bitcoin.