It's not only that it's risky. It's that by construction it can't work for everyone. You can only get rich at the expense of someone else.

I didn't say it works for everyone, I explained why people take the risk, what the macro backdrop is for this behavior. It's quite disappointing that nobody engages with that point.

Further, getting rich at somebody's expense is business as usual for any asset, be they stocks, housing, metals, anything. It's a false morality to think that this is a behavior that "good" people widely reject. Absolutely everybody in a position to do so, will. Have you ever met a home owner that gives a social discount to his inflated house when selling? I don't think so.

> Further, getting rich at somebody's expense is business as usual for any asset, be they stocks, housing, metals, anything.

No, see, that's the point I am trying to make and that you are not getting. Housing and the economy as a whole are constructive activities that create value. Crypto is not, as far as I can tell.

I'm not getting your point because you don't have one.

When I own a home worth 200K, and 5 years later sell it for 400K, I have 200K in profit. Do explain which "value" was created for that 200K?

This is not true in general or over long time spans. Moreover, it is not necessary to get rich in order to get good value out of crypto.

Isn't that also the case for capitalism?

No, capitalism is positive sum outside of a few edge cases where negative externalities are generated. Blockchain-based markets, being hyper-capitalistic, will, I suspect, prove to be positive sum as well.