One thing that a lot of bitcoin people and macro people share in common, is that they criticize the "crypto" industry.
A difference is that many macro people haven't done the fundamental research of self-custodying and transferring bitcoin as a bearer asset yet, as a test.
Creating a scarce digital asset, solving the double-spending problem- that's a real innovation.
A decentralized global ledger.
Now, people can store+transfer value globally without going through banks.
People shouldn't write that off, when thinking about tech trends and macro.
It faces ongoing risks and needs to be continually explored, but it's tremendously interesting and has survived 14 years of hardcore testing and various boom/bust cycles so far.
That's why in addition to holding some, I also deploy capital into VC to build things using its tech.
A lot of macro articles from people that criticize bitcoin+crypto together as though they are one thing, are pretty transparently from authors who haven't personally used bitcoin or any crypto, can't tell you off-the-cuff what Segwit or Taproot are, etc.
In other words, many macro people opining on bitcoin as a technical protocol, come off like opining about a company while not understanding the product or the company financials.
Blockchain trilemma? Nodes? Bandwidth? Hard forks? Soft forks? Smart contracts? Federations? What?
Most crypto projects sacrifice some degree of decentralization to "do more". This could mean more throughput, or more expressivity, etc.
But if you sacrifice decentralization, you lose the part that is actually innovative and valuable here.
Most of what is being done with "crypto" can be done better and more efficiently without a blockchain.
Bearer-asset self-referential money that solves the double-spending problem: a blockchain is good for this.
Outside of that, blockchains often are not the best solution.
The reason that many people want to add a blockchain and token to things, is for seigniorage and fast exit liquidity.
Devs+VCs want to get funding via a token, make a project, and then exit the project on retail investors prior to it being a self-sustaining business idea.
In other words, they want the rewards before the proven business model.
Traditional VC needs to go through a corporate acquisition or public SEC-approved offering for a broad exit.
Token VC, using regulatory arbitrage, can exit on retail before their project is proven at all.
That is why "crypto is a scam" tends to be a reasonable heuristic. It usually is.
But global decentralized peer-to-peer value transfer and self-custody: that's something that macro folks need to keep exploring, imo.