I think the problem is in the rules Wikipedia has for the background information about their entries. They want sources and prefer those sources to be "traditional" print media - which is understandable because you never know how long information on a website will stay unchanged or be available. Books are more reliable, they will be there tomorrow in the same form they are today. And they prefer their sources to not be partisan - again understandable. The problem with cryptocurrency and other "modern" topics is: most information is online and from interested parties because the rest of the world doesn't care for it.
For Wikipedia we are like followers of a strange cult insisting our leader is the only one that can lead us to salvation. And most of the sources we offered are, well, cult-adjacent ;)
This is another very serious problem that many changes are simply put down with the argument not a "reliable source" and Wikipedia does not count high-quality third-party reviews and articles on the Web as reliable unless they come from the traditional media, which is a bit ironic, since Wikipedia itself heavily relied on the self-publishing nature of the Internet.