  We refute the criticism expressed in a Comment by Krstulovic, L'vov, and
Nazarenko [arXiv:2107.10598] on our paper [Phys. Rev. E 103, 023106 (2021)]. We
first show that quantization of circulation is not ignored in our analysis.
Then, we propose a more sophisticated analysis to avoid a subtle problem with
the regularity of the velocity field. We thus defend the main results of our
paper, which predicts the double-cascade scenario where the quantum stress
cascade follows the Richardson cascade. We also provide a conjecture on the
relation between the Kelvin-wave cascade and the quantum stress cascade.
