some questions regarding cryptos

[MysteriousWeeb420]

1. What happened to the "no fees" argument? From what i'm reading, you pay fees for every transaction you complete

2. What happened to the "no intermediaries" argument? you can't even hold cryptos without using (someone's) online wallet, not to mention paying/subscribing to a bunch of shady sites providing "information" about the pertinent market/sector

3. What happens if you open your online wallet and get an error of any kind or just see your balance is smaller than it should be? Who protects you from thieves (and thieves here arent your local hobos, but educated software engineers/hackers and guys of similar profile)? Which institutions and with what resources? Also, aren't transactions completely untrackable (which was the third and last semi-sound pro crypto argument)?

4. From 1 to 10, how stupid would you say you are?

Thank you

1. no fees was always infeasible, idk who advocated otherwise

2. kind of, but not for transactions + smart contract interactions 

3. then you fucked up by leaking your seed phrase. the odds of someone getting your funds otherwise is so atronomically low, it's more likely all the oxygen atoms go to the other side of the room and you suffocate. 

transactions are all public and trackable by law enforcement (this has been proven multiple times)

4. 9

1. mirin' denial. literally everyone. "no fees", "no intermediaries", "decentralization" and "anonymity" were like the 4 dogmas of cryptards even though it was blatantly obvious that large systems can't function like that without end-users losing way more in terms of security and reliability to everyone who has spent more than a week in the adult world (this would assume people fantasizing about becoming millionaires over night are actually genuinely into cryptos because of its supposedly objective superiority, though, and the reality is that 99% of them never even experienced any problems regarding those 4 aspects of the current system; feel free to refute me with your own experience)

2. so, identical to conventional transactions at best (and yeah, i'm sure your average crypto fanatic is so economically active that a couple of bank commissions are creating significant losses; how many of "smart contract transactions", whatever that's supposed to stand for, have you completed so far?)

3. this isn't even identical to getting scammed out of your bank-deposited money in best case scenario for you, since you can easily block your accounts by personally verifying your identity to the bank; with a cute additional detail - banking sector is heavily regulated and banks can't just go missing, while the only info you have  about, for example, your online wallet of choice is what? its url and user reviews on reddit and twitter (that could easily be fake)? lmao

in other words, 3/3 main arguments for why decentralized digital coins are superior to fiat money are already proven to be bullshit before cryptos came anywhere close to the status of the mainstream payment method.

it's not that anyone with half a brain needed a confirmation that  this would be the case a couple of years ago, tho. but listening to people babble with willymonfrete tier coherence is both hilarious and disturbing at the same time

1. no one with a triple digit iq was saying this because validators require a reward for validating the network 

2. in my experience every time I've had to interact with my bank it's been shit and painful. is it not obvious that a more automated system is superior?

3. again you seem to be critiquing crypo under the impression it is a fiat replacement, which is the entirely wrong angle to approach from.