Ann: Quarterly Activities Report, page-166

The cryptos should not be called currency at all. They are more proper to be named as crypto token. I am an IT professional and I can see many flaws in the crypto theries. Don't get me wrong, high standard encryptions are very hard to crack, that's true. But when one wants it to hold value, and in a long run as "currency", there are so many other factors come in play.
Anonymous? When you redeem it to $, you could get cracked;
Rare resource? I don't think so. Bitcoin is like running a private network. Yes, within its own domain the "coins" are limited. But like network, you can run many instances. So you can have Bitcoin 1, Bitcoin 2 ... n running parallelly on internet - you don't even need to invent another algorithm;
Secured? How does one remember its password reliably? Engrave on a steel gadget? Thieves can get it and clear the wallet and disappear. Even worse, ransom for your password and rob straight away - and you can't sue the mobs because the coins are anonymous, you can't prove you owned them;
How will company hold cryptos? Who's going to hold the key? A single point breach apparrently;
And political hostility/competition. Governments are building their own digital currencies, they hate being token away the monopoly power of issuing currencies;
More we can add ...

As I believe, pumping up cryptos is most likely a conspiracy that bullion banks and their gangs etc want to use them to distract the safe heaven seekers, therefore they can have their shorting positions covered. But the long term distortion of gold value could indeed damage the human tradition of value. Call it corruption? Unfortunately that's the reality, the new normal.