You just described the value in your question. A wealth store/transfer platform that does require armies to protect its "banks", as they are distributed/global, does not encourage wars.
Sure it does. It uses an insane amount of power. Wars are fought over the resources to generate that power all the time. You could argue that the governments of the world are indirectly subsidizing crypto by using war to maintain a stable source of energy. With no government around to protect the river that powers the hydro dam, or acquire the oil / coal required for the power plants, what is gonna power these blockchains? Solar? Who makes the solar panels? That requires trade... who structures that trade? Government.
Sorry. Bitcoin, nor any blockchain, cannot function without the all mighty government.
There has been a lot of exaggeration around the amount of power used for mining. It's less that the energy used to run Google, Facebook, and many industrial applications and certainly not remotely comparable to the bulk of oil consumption in 1st world countries.
(Don't get me wrong: I'm not a fan of Bitcoin and I don't use cryptocurrencies.)
> You could argue that the governments of the world are indirectly subsidizing crypto by using war to maintain a stable source of energy. > Sorry. Bitcoin, nor any blockchain, cannot function without the all mighty government.
This is a complete strawman. You just conflated the efforts being spent by countries to protect their entire wealth including stocks, gold, fiat money, derivatives with the efforts to access energy sources.
Hyper-deflationary token systems that not only don't scale but lose their utility when adopted are horrible currencies. The more people use a particular block chain the less utility it has because the system doesn't scale in either transaction volume or token price stability.