I understand the intention behind this article/blog and agree that we should not write off the alternative protein story but I do not think anybody is doing that anyways. Investors have billions at stake as the low interest rate environment/easy money combined with the FOMO effect among the investor community made them invest in many alt. protein startups at sky high valuations. So what is happening now (when interest rates have gone up and money is not as cheap to borrow as it was couple of years back) and will happen further is that startups with weak business models & inflated promises will not be able to raise fresh rounds of investment at those high valuations as before making it difficult for VCs/PEs to make an exit without losing money. Simply put- Investors who did not do proper due-diligence of startups will lose money. Coming back to the article - there are multiple logical flaws in it- Applying Gartner Hype Cycle (which is used to study the progression in maturity of emerging technologies) to how people make their food choices (driven by multiple factors like biological, social, cultural, economic, psychological, attitudinal, beliefs and so on) is flawed. The blog extends this illogical comparison by trying to draw parallels of growth of alt. proteins with the launch of ChatGPT and Internet adoption in the 90s (internet is a homogeneous entity which had a very unique value proposition of adding to people's convenience just like many other technological inventions). Also, comparing alternative protein products with coca cola's low sugar SKUs is also fundamentally wrong. Coca cola zero is an example of line extension of an established category whereas Alt. protein innovations are completely new products/categories which are trying to mimic their underlying established categories/products.