Good Lord, that was painful to read.
Rockefeller, Rothschild, and JP Morgan did not come up with fractional reserve banking, it was around long before their time.
Cryptocurrencies are not the brain child of the deep state. They're open source and decentralized, how is the deep state supposed to control Bitcoin, or any other open source cryptocurrency? Anyone in the world could verify this with just a basic understanding of programming.
He just made up that the FBI is the largest holder of Bitcoin. Even if true, there's no evidence this is the case, just pure conjecture and, probably, a little cognitive dissonance.
Whining about wealth concentration is not an argument.
There is no "backdoor of the block chain technology" for the NSA. The code is open source, you can verify this yourself.
7 tx/sec is actually relevant, it's abysmally low and the blocks are full, resulting in excessively high fees. However, it doesn't mean Bitcoin will stay there forever, or that all blockchains are that limited in their capacity.
Bitcoin ETF is a horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE idea, at least he got something right.
It's an asset backed by cryptography, guaranteed maximum supply (even if consensus could be reached to raise it, the price would plummet before it could even be implemented), forks of Bitcoin are not "more Bitcoin," they're just different coins.
"Accidentally performing money laundering" isn't a thing. I'M not laundering money, that's not my problem. If anything, the exchange might have to answer some questions, not me.
Property Asset Forfeiture is an extremely limited in scope, and some cryptos eliminate the risk entirely. Again, most criminal transactions are performed with dollars, you're more likely to end up with the wrong serial number on your green paper than with the wrong coin in a blockchain.
An EMP would have to hit the entire world at the same time for it to wipe out a blockchain, decentralization is global. Whether you have your private key written down anywhere to survive that EMP so you still have access to your funds is another story.
A floating currency cannot be considered money, so what? It doesn't have to be. They're not even claiming to be. They're not called Cryptomonies.
The biggest point he's missing is that cryptocurrencies backed by physical assets already exist. Unless he would like the government to run his money, we all know how good they are at maintaining a currency supply /s
Cryptos are not going away. If you want one backed by gold, buy that one, there are several. If you don't trust the ones backed by gold, make your own, with any and all of the transparencies or openness you think the current ones are lacking. Even if (when) fiat dies, and we want to transact with gold and silver coins, you have to admit there are limiting factors there. An open source decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) could do things for gold that it could never do on its own without relying on trusted third parties to hold your metal.
Cryptos don't need to be money. They could merely be an in-and-out value transfer mechanism, where you want to store your wealth outside of that is up to you. A simple exchange linked to, say, your precious metals vault could make your wealth simultaneously safer and more spendable than ever before.
You've got to widen your view to the disruptive capability of these things, currency is but one application of blockchain technology. We'll have a third generation of the internet in the future, decentralized and censorship proof. Blockchains offer unprecedented preservation, security, and on-demand access for data storage and transfer. Blockchain's transparent nature would reduce, if not eliminate, theft and fraud in everything it touches.
It was the venting of a friend of mine and although I do not agree with everything he has to say, he does bring up some valid concerns and points. There are some flaws with the crypto. I myself and dabbling a bit in it so as to learn more about it and work through the bugs.