I also think there are a lot of people who have been both. When I came across the original Bitcoin paper, I thought it was interesting, a novel application of technology. I looked forward to see where it went.

In a decade, though, it has gone approximately nowhere [1], while I've been forced to deal with an incredible amount of hype. I am anti-Bitcoin in the same way I'm anti-Jehovah's-Witness: if they would just stop knocking on my door all the time to share the good news, I'd be happy to ignore them in return. But at least the JWs aren't losing hundreds of millions of dollars of other people's money every time I turn around.

[1] In contrast to, say M-Pesa, which in the same period became a daily-use digital money for millions and millions of people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa

M-Pesa and Bitcoin are completely different things. It says right in that wiki article that "M-Pesa is a branchless banking service". It's used in conjunction with existing fiat currency from what I understand.

Bitcoin's original goal was "electronic cash". As was M-Pesa's. They solve the same main user problem: payment. It's true that they're implemented in completely different ways, and with different philosophies. But my point with M-Pesa is that there are no inherent barriers to digital money. If Bitcoin had been useful to a broad audience, it could have had adoption similar to M-Pesa's. It hasn't, and at the rate it's going, it never will.

Using already existing fiat currency is probably why it is successful.