Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an excellent point, as scalability has been the critical handicap of public blockchains to date. This article is nearly two years old, but provides a good overview of the latest techniques devised for achieving scalability in public blockchains: https://polynya.medium.com/rollups-data-availability-layers-... Since then, layer 2s (which are the principal execution layer of the modular blockchain stack the artic…
> scalability has been the critical handicap of public blockchains to date. Also, the blatant scam nature of them is a bit of a problem. While there's a lot of hype, the Washington Post already printed the truth in 2015 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/08/bitco... which an economy professor have nicely expanded on in two blog posts https://ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/bitcoin/2020-12-31-bitcoin-pon... htt…
Put another way, there is nothing inherently scammy in using a distributed blockchain to record balances, and cryptography to authenticate updates to the balances. While opening the door to financial contracts to every one in the world with a computing device may make scam offerings more common, it's overly simplistic and lazy to resort to a caricature of crypto tokens being, as a rule, scams.
Articles like the ones you linked above want a return to serfdom, under the control of officialdom. There is no other conceivable reason why someone would not want people to have at least the option of taking custody over their own money, in a form more useful than physical cash.