This is about the dynamics between a set of entities, being mischaracterized as a fundamental property of one of these entities. (Here: migration of a pool of bad actors from traditional finance to cryptocurrency).

Like saying Iraq is an evil country by design because it harbors terrorist groups. Most people would agree by now that the emergence of these groups isn't directly caused by the nature of the country's culture or religion. For good reasons we have enough respect for these things to dig deeper in our understanding than a superficial glance. You're free to not do this with cryptocurrency, but then you probably shouldn't hold your opinions about it too strongly.

Comparing Bitcoin with a country like Iraq is pointlessly simplistic. Countries are complex social entities that aggregate behaviors through a large number of mechanisms. Bitcoin is a single mechanism whose characteristics have entirely predictable consequences.

Any sympathy for the University of California? https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53214783

Bitcoin doesn't kill people. People kill people...right?

Cash is a single mechanism, that also predictably allows robbers to more easily offload their loot than if it was livestock, jewels or silverware. Are cash and other fungible assets automatically evil once they're on the internet?

You can cite random examples of crimes committed using Bitcoin, but that still doesn't begin to address the initial argument to which I replied: is cryptocurrency inherently evil? Will it cause more good in the world than bad once it is widely adopted?