Interesting question. Do you mean dispassionate, or even handed, or could you accept that the non sober "it's a con" responses might be non sober but true?<p>Seriously, what are you looking for. It isn't clear. Do you want to trust it because it's.. "sober" irrespective of what it says?<p>I think a lot of even handed information is at best superficial. It often implies a false dichotomy, a pro and con model of the world. Some things, physical axioms perhaps as a solid example, don't really present dichotomous bases for for and against arguments. So the even handed discussion of false theories of gravity or the speed of light are kind of silly, counter-productive.<p>I tend to think the same of web3: it's a con, and has nothing much to do with societal benefit, and a lot to do with ponzi behaviour.<p>Few economists think cryptocurrency is the answer. Fintech companies may indeed say blockchains are interesting but not because of speculative gain, which is the primary drive for most people. They represent possible models of non repudiation transactions between consenting parties who don't want a single agency to act as ground truth. That's about it. Trust third parties and regulators actually do pretty much as well. Regulators like industry neutral clearing house models which can include block chains, public signed ledger models.