You might think this is a waste of your time, and that this idea sounds ludicrous -
Despite the previous comment not exactly following the form, going through an accusation audit prior to making your case is an extremely useful way of neutralizing the negative and getting your counterpart to open up to your ideas.
I highly suggest reading Chris Voss' take on this topic in Never Split the Difference.
More details on how this book would apply here would be welcome.
I don't imagine the stance OP took (saying that HN is skeptical about crypto and implying that HN is biased and thus wrong) actually works here. What would work better would be to acknowledge some limitations of this whole field so far, so that readers expect a balanced opinion with possibly new insights that go beyond these well-known limitations.
If you take an extremely unreasonable opinion and a reasonable one, meeting in the middle is still not acceptable, and it's a bias in itself to lean towards this position. If it's not obvious within 10s that you're a reasonable and knowledgeable person, it's hard to convince myself that I should spend more time and give you the benefit of the doubt in the meantime, when so many other sources seem more promising.
"People here dislike this" or "this will probably get downvoted" is not an accusation audit. "I realize that the following objections to this idea have been raised previously" is entirely different.
I agree that there are times when challenging the reader's bias can be effective. Yes, that's slightly different than challenging an entire community's bias, but certainly worth calling out.
Despite the previous comment not exactly following the form, going through an accusation audit prior to making your case is an extremely useful way of neutralizing the negative and getting your counterpart to open up to your ideas.
I highly suggest reading Chris Voss' take on this topic in Never Split the Difference.