A lot of this is a matter of opinion, so I don't think it's useful to argue at length... but at least two of the people in the honourable mentions are literal convicted criminals and high-profile scammers.
Even if you're willing to discount their motive for advancing the cause of cryptocurrency, as far as I'm concerned, neither should these people be given any kind of honourable acknowledgement, nor is it even settled that cryptocurrencies are a net-positive for society, or that they serve their intended purpose, for the most part.
To elaborate on that last part: Bitcoin, a crypto asset which at this point is substantially not used as a currency, is still proof-of-work, which at that scale is immensely environmentally impactful; in the cases where Bitcoin is still used as a currency, a considerable amount of that exchange volume is in support of scams.
(It was also submitted 2 days ago by the same author).
It's funny, trade magazines used to do these quarterly roundups of like "the 40 most influential people in computer security", because they were reliable ways to get security bloggers to link back to the trade publications. I don't know what the point of this list is!
To show honor and respect to you. All too often, you and your peers are not given the spotlight you deserve!
> LLMspam
I used LLM for help but calling it spam is unfair! A significant amount of research and time went into this.
Still, there's some interesting reading there. I'm seen worse lists submitted to HN. :-)
phoronixrly•45m ago