The proof that it's a ponzi scheme is that some blockchains use proof of work which requires electricity. It's left as an exercise to the reader to prove the claim that a distributed and decentralized database has no value (or better the reader should just take those unproven claims at face value). Lots of web3, NFT, DAO, decentralized gaming, metaverse, and DeFi projects are of dubious value but I find the lack of discussion about any of that in the article to be a pretty big red flag.
This reads like the writer had a conclusion in mind and couldn't be bothered to actually look at any of the existing or potential future use cases and wrote off the entire thing as a scam. It's possible the conclusion is true but too many of the actually important details are missing and too much of the focus is on completely irrelevant things (like the fact that some blockchains are proof of work so even proof of stake blockchains would be Ponzi schemes) for this to even be worth reading for most people.
It isn't up to skeptics and critics to prove "blockchain technology" doesn't have any real value (or that it's not particularly innovative). It's up to the blockchain proponents or "community" to deliver value. Just calling something revolutionary and useful doesn't make it so. More than a decade after "blockchain" became a thing we have yet to see any value other than crypto, and the value from crypto is mainly in illegal financial transactions and fraud.
If distributed, decentralized, append-only databases have wider applications (outside of crypto), what are those applications? When will we see the disruption?
David Gerard showed that blockchain is wearing no clothes in Attack of the 50-foot Blockchain and nothing has happened since he published that book to make me think he was wrong.
> It isn't up to skeptics and critics to prove "blockchain technology" doesn't have any real value
The author isn't claiming they're skeptical. They're claiming it's a ponzi. The burden of proof is on them to demonstrate their claim has merit. They can't fall back on saying they're just skeptical. That's not what they're arguing.
This reads like the writer had a conclusion in mind and couldn't be bothered to actually look at any of the existing or potential future use cases and wrote off the entire thing as a scam. It's possible the conclusion is true but too many of the actually important details are missing and too much of the focus is on completely irrelevant things (like the fact that some blockchains are proof of work so even proof of stake blockchains would be Ponzi schemes) for this to even be worth reading for most people.