Who are you trying to fool with this? All web3 and cryptocurrency projects trace their lineage back to the Bitcoin paper, and they include or interface with some permutation on a blockchain modelled totally or substantially on Bitcoin's blockchain. Projects of that nature fall under the term crypto. Pretty sure you could figure that out just from the Super Bowl commercials.
Critics of crypto are almost always objecting to its use as a financial instrument, or as a way to technologically convert social relations into markets (as in the case of "play-to-earn" games turning MMO guilds into a peasant-lord economic relation, fun fun fun). There are already substantial, standing arguments against all of the meaningful permutations/additions to the blockchain technology (NFTs, DAOs, stablecoins, proof of stake...).
These arguments are not necessary because in practice every crypto project to date has been a scam, an inefficient implementation of something that already exists (either slower, more wasteful, or not fixing any of the problems that it points out in its traditional equivalent), or is just an unregulated security. The self-proclaimed geniuses that develop crypto projects have spent the last decade rediscovering all of the pitfalls that led to the present-day financial system they so badly want to disrupt, and losing gullible people's money doing it.
The core of crypto, in my opinion and explicitly in Bitcoin, is "trustless money" but crypto is only trustless in the abstract. We have to have trust that the developers of our coin didn't make any mistakes. We have to trust that the coin will not just fork if a rich guy loses money (like Ethereum did in the 2016 DAO attack).
If we want to build something complicated we have to trust that the smart contract developers are not malicious and made no mistakes. Obvious counter to this is that they are open source, but we're not talking about trustless money for programmers. Some will say that "the market" will figure out who to trust through adoption but in empirical reality this has not been the case.
I am not an economist, but basic observation also tells us that an asset that fluctuates as wildly as Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies is also not good as a currency. Transaction are also slow and expensive, and any crypto project that purports to solve this problem may want to check out a similar little technology called "Visa".
We can hate the way central banking is done, but developers really need to come to terms with the fact that we have had far too many technological fixes for social problems. Many crypto projects promise many things, but I ultimately trust a central, predictable authority (even if it's corrupt) more than some guy operating in a field that, time and time again, just takes peoples money and runs.
I want to see crypto remain 100% legal but get taxed fairly, because everyone who is pretending it's the future will immediately liquidate their assets and leave.