I’m familiar with your style of argumentation.
Let’s reflect on it:
Your point: grandma 
doesn’t use crypto, grandma uses checks
Conclusion: mass crypto adoption will not happen
My point: grandmas don’t equal mass crypto adoption, some grandmas don’t use internet, internet still a thing. Grandmas are not the future, grandmas don’t make up a huge part of the economy, some grandmas won’t even be around in 10 years. Younger generations are the future, younger generations have no problem adopting crypto.
Conclusion: no correlation between mass crypto adoption and Grandmas.
Your rebuttal:
Grandpa is interested in crypto (so are they interested or are they not interested?), you’re discouraging grandpas by telling them they won’t be around in 10 years and encouraging them to just stick to cash.
Conclusion: somewhow my previous argument is invalid now.
Yeah…like I said before, a bunch of blah blah blah. You write paragraphs on top of paragraphs, but it’s just more of this stuff. Someone successfully counter argues and rather than conceding to a good point you contest it and try to veer it in some weird way thats somehow suppose to redeem yours, but there’s no correlation to the original argument. This type of argumentation is and I use this word seriously…”stupid,” so let’s stop doing that.