Move billions of dollars != help society in any meaningful way. In fact many of the cited papers have been considered extremely harmful to society.

fny 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You're introducing a moral claim that this site does not make.

	▲	pointlessone 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Absence of such a claim is a commentary on its own, intended or not. Economic activity is almost always presented as a positive thing. It’s said to create jobs, generate wealth, increase production, etc. And here most of the things on the list moved massive amounts of capital without producing any of the positive effects. We get an odd WWW proposal that did actually produce those effects, but for each of those we also get a dozen of blockchain links. I’d say same goes for AI. While it has more utility than blockchain ever did it’s hard to say it was net positive overall to date.
	▲	vkaku 12 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I'm just stating my opinion here. Whether it's considered moral or not is left to the discretion of the reader.

p-e-w 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Which of these papers “have been considered extremely harmful to society” by a significant number of people who wouldn’t be classified as cranks?

I’m asking specifically about claims that those papers have harmed society. Not cop-outs like “the author does things I don’t like”.

	▲	DaiPlusPlus 11 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Less "extremely negative" - but there's at least a few "net-negative" things here: for example, the Ethereum and Web3 papers. Smart-contracts and NFTs failed to create any meaningful value or have any lasting economic impact, while their negatives at the time were well-reported (and let's include "crimes against taste" in that too).
	▲	donbox 12 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Bitcoin?