People who are famous or important talked about crypto, which is a way of sending money on the internet without using banks. Some people think it's great and others don't. One person said it's good for lazy people because they can make money easily without doing much work. Read from source...

1. The title is misleading and clickbaity, implying that there are only two extreme views on crypto - either as a lazy person's dream or the most significant monetary advance. In reality, crypto is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that deserves more nuanced analysis and discussion.
2. The article does not provide any clear definition or criteria for what constitutes a VIP or an expert in the field of crypto. This creates confusion and bias, as different sources may have different agendas, biases, or lack of knowledge about the subject matter. For example, Donald Trump is mentioned as a former U.S. president who has no known expertise or involvement in crypto, while Edward Snowden is mentioned as a whistleblower and privacy advocate who has been vocal about his support for crypto. Are they equally credible sources? How does their influence or popularity affect the perceived value of their opinions?
3. The article presents a collection of pro and anti-crypto commentary without providing any context, background, or explanation for each statement. This makes it hard for readers to understand the reasoning behind each viewpoint, evaluate its validity, and form their own opinion. For example, why does Andrew Tate call crypto "the lazy person's dream"? What are his arguments and assumptions? How do they compare to other perspectives on crypto as a productive, creative, or transformational force in society and economy?
4. The article uses emotional language and tone throughout, such as "spiciest", "zinger key points", and "no net benefit to the universe". This creates a sensationalized and polarizing atmosphere that may appeal to some readers but also alienates others who seek more objective and rational information about crypto. It also undermines the credibility of the article as a reliable source of information and education on crypto.
5. The article fails to address any of the major challenges, risks, or criticisms that crypto faces as an industry and a technology. For example, it does not mention anything about the environmental impact of crypto mining, the regulatory uncertainty surrounding crypto assets, the volatility and speculation of crypto markets, the security and privacy issues of crypto transactions, or the ethical implications of crypto governance and ownership. These are important topics that affect not only the viability and sustainability of crypto but also its social and economic impact on individuals and communities.

Bullish

Explanation: The article discusses various VIP opinions on crypto, most of which are positive or supportive of its growth and potential. Andrew Tate's statement can be seen as a criticism of some cryptocurrencies, but overall the sentiment is bullish as it highlights how crypto is becoming more mainstream and widely accepted. The title itself also suggests a positive outlook on crypto's advancement.