And you're mixing up profitability with stock price speculation, which are two very different things - witness the Gamestop incident. Once the stock is sold to the public, its price fluctuations don't actually affect the bottom line of the company unless there's a buyback.
One of the hallmarks of a tech company is that the costs associated with producing the product is relatively flat and the revenue from the product goes up linearly with usage. Most tech companies then spend their money on recruiting more engineers, to try to build more products that are cheap to maintain and generate smooth rising revenues. The increased fed spending changes the stock price, but it’s not changing the fundamentals of why selling network access software is so good.
Oh wait
The reason why tulips are so successful and anti-fragile is that they can be grown everywhere.
By the way, if an activity like mining is only profitable because of money printing (depressing interest rates), given the world has been in zero to negative interest rates, this means the activity is not productive.
I can't believe some people still think that Bitcoin is more speculative than major tech stocks. Facebook, Twitter, Google, Uber, Snapchat... All propped up by money printing. I think if we ran a simulation using hard (non-fiat) money, the net losses of these big tech companies would be even more significant than Bitcoin's losses on electricity. They're only profitable because of the fiat monetary scheme. If you remove the scheme, I think it's likely that revenue would dry up and profits would quickly go negative. These companies are just not viable in a hard money system. More profitable competitors would quickly spring up and there would be constant churn.
The reason why Bitcoin is so successful and anti-fragile is that it's located everywhere. It always has access to the easiest money from all around the world. It has placed itself at the root of every scheme around the world.