A disgruntled vocal minority belong to the church of anti-crypto, and they have taken upon themselves to proselytize (see Woke Invasion) the unsuspecting masses - which righteous indignation is best illustrated by their following decree:

“I have instead come to believe that [crypto is] so harmful that I cannot ethically continue to ignore them, and must instead do my best to educate and advocate against their wider adoption. I am picking my battles, and this is one of them.” –source:

Potential factors

  • Climate Alarmism

  • Envy

    Having been involved from the beginning, I can tell you that detractors (especially vocal ones) are far more invested than proponents. Imagine declaring bitcoin dead in 2014, and then again the next year, and then the next… and while this is going on you can’t help but calculate how much potential profit your mistake has cost you. You are also going to be struggling with envy, and your offended sense of justice. What would such an experience do to a person? Well, it makes them very upset - and desperate for something that would shield their ego. The whole environmental impact cover is a perfect example: the papers people point to are always poorly executed, using outdated data and poorly justified guestimation… always without acknowledging the most important part - “relative to what?” But that isn’t really the point, the point is to provide a moral justification for the costly shortsighted position. –sennight

  • Losing control (over Censorship)

    I predict essentially identical Censorship/deplatforming policies across all layers of the legacy Internet stack. Client-side & server-side ISPs, cloud platforms, CDNs, payment networks, client OSs, browsers, email clients. With only rare exceptions. The pressure is intense. —Marc Andreessen

Incidentally, Mr Rossum’s Twitter biography reads “fully vaccinated” with pronouns “He/him” (usually a form of status signalling of woke identity politics, if not a bizzare reinforcement of one’s illusory gender identity) plastared over it.