Your points are based almost entirely on ignorance.
"Hence, even if a 51% of Bitcoin or Ethereum was practically possible (it isn't), it can be ignored." - you are assuming you know who is malicious and who is not, a false assumption
"A blockchain, it is N/2. Clearly more fault tolerant." - no, because in blockchain once you have N/2 you are king forever - a bad centralised authority can be voted out or forced to change by law. This also assumes that only one central authority decides everything in a given real world currency, which is also nonsense.
" Blatantly false. No one individual or entity have even close to the recourses to attack a decentralised blockchains like Bitcoin. " - yes they do. Bitcoin market cap as the highest cap cryptocurrency is barely any higher than Elon Musk's net worth as *one* person, good luck turning that to anything other than PoW. Even in PoW it's possible; convince users to download dodgy validation software, which is far easier than you realise, and off you go.
"What? You just explained how with distributed Proof of Work consensus, it is extremely difficult to modify data on a blockchain." - difficult is not equal to impossible, and it's not even close to impossible. On top of that, unless you plan on burning the planet down, staying on PoW isn't a viable option for many decades from now.
"Of course this means that individuals must learn how to properly custody their own crypto assets, but does not mean that the blockchain itself of NFTs aren't secure/don't prove ownership." - yes it does. You need to learn some basic cybersecurity history and current practice - users have enough trouble just remembering passwords and keeping them secure, let alone keeping safe custody of an asset they don't understand. Blockchain security is useless when all other parts of the system (centralised website, users being careless) are weaker.
"Most of the Bitcoin mining is NOT located in China. The ban in May-June caused a great migration of coal consuming hashrate to renewables consuming hashrate in the unites States and Canada. Those percentages are not updated)." - no, read the article again. The US actually has comparable rates of fossil fuel use to China, and "well we use the renewable" part - even if true - just means cryptominers are pushing other businesses into using fossil fuels instead of renewables. Not like infinite renewable energy is available.
"Not only does Bitcoin and Ethereum replace many archaic systems that consume way more energy and paper than them" - so far, bitcoin and ethereum combined aren't even a speck of dust compared to the size of real world financial systems, and as previously shown they are horrendously inefficient per-transaction. Increase them to the size of real-world systems and they will consume hundreds of times more energy than the systems you claim 'use more'.
"A lot of the energy consumed by Bitcoin is cheap since the energy produces is in surplus and cannot be stored, so miners make use of that are are incentivised to do so." - guess what: many businesses are trying to take advantage of this energy, cryptomining is making it more expensive and more difficult to do so, causing a higher use of non-renewables than there would otherwise be.
"Of course some small market capitalisation assets can be manipulated by large players or celebrities, but if you think market manipulation is a problem in crypto currencies, learn about how the stock and real estate markets work." - again complete nonsense, you see this occasionally in stock markets, not in every single part of it. Market manipulation is bad there, but in crypto, there is nothing *but* market manipulation going on. Real estate is more of a regulatory problem than a zero-value problem.
""Coinbase or Binance don’t require you to give your personal details or hand over control of your crypto wallet"
They do." - Thank you for the information, that makes the argument against crypto stronger, not weaker. Do you have any idea how ironic it is to believe that a 'decentralised cryptocurrency' won't be regulated by central authorities the same way as real-world currencies, when private companies subjected to domestic and international law have that control? I note that CoinBase is subject to the usual KYC financial requirements normal financial companies are, as they state on their website, and is a US company bound by US and international law.
"This makes no sense to compare DeFi default rates with legacy finance default rates: Typical bank loans you are borrowing money you don't have - they are undercollateralized. In DeFi, all loans are overcollateralized, meaning that the lender is not subject to default risk." - you think you are borrowing money from yourself with DeFi? that the money you recover if the borrower defaults just comes out of thin air?
you would do well to learn about the subject before making a complete series of non-points
