Formalities are social conventions used to show other parties that you take a matter, topic, or occasion seriously and that you're willing to follow rules. Usually formalities show up in systems that require trust. You don't want to piss off the other party or make them think you don't have respect for the rules. It has its place.
However, you can afford to be informal about systems that don't require trust. There's no one on the other side to appease. You have to obey the rules to even use Bitcoin so there's no need to show that you will respect the rules. You can't help but follow the rules.
To be fair it doesn't mention Bitcoin in the passage, it refers to all of "crypto," which is ignorant. This post reads like thanking a child for making a mistake while learning.
True, good point. I guess my argument is that it's a bad attack.
Ambiguities for interpretation in official documentation like this are, at minimum, targets for legal attacks. The vagueness of the word "crypto-currency" leaves a lot of wiggle room for either party (the IMF or Argentina's central bank) to exploit.
If Argentina, say, wanted to issue a CBDC, could that CBDC then not use any kind of ECDSA? Define "crypto-currency." It makes IMF into an authority of defining "crypto" for its own benefit until intermediation is required. In the meantime, it sets up a grey zone for those who are willing to move quickly and ask for forgiveness later.