It's a tautology, as no implementation of a concept will ever be equivalent to the pure concept. The real existing examples of implementations of concepts will still tell you something about the viability of the concept.
> no implementation of a concept will ever be equivalent to the pure concept.
True crypto does exist.
Bitcoin is true crypto.
When I mine Bitcoin, and I use that Bitcoin to buy something from someone else, that is true crypto.
When I sell something for Bitcoin, that is true crypto.
When I exchange fiat for Bitcoin at a centralized exchange, and I successfully withdraw it to a self-custody wallet. That is acceptably close to true crypto.
standing committees are necessary parts of communism that always result in permanent authoritarian control of all people and all resources. humans don't have a way around that and that necessary phase is a prerequisite to the ideological phase. there is no evidence that it is worth pursuing given that irreconcilable implementation flaw.
consumers choosing mismanaged companies are consumer discernment problems that have nothing to do with the sector they're involved in. specifically with crypto, centralized exchanges and brokerage experiences are not necessary parts of the crypto ecosystem and exist in parallel to other ways of getting fiat in and out of crypto, and other ways of getting exposure to the crypto ecosystem. many proponents of the crypto asset ecosystem have always sounded the alarm on those kinds of companies and actively track how much crypto is held by the companies or in self custody.
analogies compare dissimilar things with common attributes, what is the common attribute between observers of these two concepts?
you don't have be a believer in either to understand that objectively