This is only true if you define "value" to mean "people are willing to pay money for it."

But that's a useless and circular definition. It's only tolerated because assuming that money is a proxy for value was useful for making crude models in economics.

> If I'm willing to pay for something then it must have more value to me than the money I am paying, otherwise I wouldn't pay for it.

I disagree. People pay for stuff of no value to them all the time, for various reasons. That someone is willing to pay doesn't automatically mean it has value to them, although it does heavily imply it.

Very comfortable saying that my definition of value is opposed to many companies and startups

The real problem in the world of crypto is that it's gone through many boom and bust cycles without real innovation to match. The future of what crypto could deliver is as speculative now as it was five years ago.