Does crypto have a "representative problem" and does this limit crypto's adoption? The general public associates crypto with the likes of Elon Musk, Michael Saylor, Jim Cramer, Bitboy, Sam Bankman-Fried, and Do Kwon

Its no secret that most people from outside of the crypto space have a negative opinion of crypto, even though the general public does really know what the technology does and how cypto can help improve their daily lives. That is partly because of the negative picture that the media paints of crypto, likely inspired by how much traditional finance sees crypto as a threat.

Yet I wonder if it is also not in part due to the people that represent crypto in the eyes of the public or are at least associated with crypto in their view.

When you ask regular people about crypto, they likely get an image of people like:

• Elon Musk - uses crypto as a play toy and is very controversial
• Michael Saylor - almost a cult like figure where Bitcoin is his religion
• Jim Cramer - an absolute clown that is very bearish at the bottom and bullish at the top
• Bitboy or other social media shillers - these are criminals that do undisclosed shilling and pump and dumps. Most of them cant form a sentence
• Sam Bankman-Fried - a criminal that should be in jail
• Do Kwon - a criminal wanted by interpol

These are the types of people that will get or got invited to speak about crypto in the media or covered in all the written news posts. And they are not the best people when it comes to informing the public on the benefits of blockchain technology for various reasons.

And then I am not even listing all the crazy celebrities who shilled crypto to try and profit off of their followers' losses and then got sued, like Snoop Dog, Kim Kardashian, Floyd Mayweather Jr, Jake Paul, and Lindsey Lohan.

Questions

• What do you think and why? Is this a bad thing that limits adoption or does it not matter?
• What can we do about this? Who would be a good representative in the eyes of the public. Perhaps Cathie Wood or Vitalik Buterin?