For you guys money is a done deal. For a HUGE part of the world, something as basic as money (or even water) is not. Try to be a little bit more empathic.
EDIT:
https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world.htm
>>The term Third World was originally coined in times of the Cold War to distinguish those nations that are neither aligned with the West (NATO) nor with the East, the Communist bloc.
“Third world” was just a grouping of nations that didn’t align themselves with the USA or USSR during the cold war.
Over time labelling a country as “3rd world” become the de facto way of categorising it as a “developing country”.
There are at least a dozen 'very solid' currencies that people anywhere should be able to transact in, notably the USD.
All of which you 'own'.
If there are helpful things they can do, 'digital' currencies, especially USD, (one that is not mess) would be imminently useful.
If you thought the 'petro dollar' was a big thing wait until the 'digital dollar' and entire economies de facto switch to USD.
There are capital controls in place in these countries that make holding foreign currency simultaneously difficult and illegal.
This is why I believe a US CBDC and CBDC wars are highly likely.
A CBDC allows nations to control those nations that use their currency and the increasing it’s use allows the issuing nation to debase the currency to their advantage.
The only problem is distribution of technology but this is only a matter of time.
Your comment is like telling someone poor “just go to work”, or telling people dying of hunger: “you don’t need to die of hunger, you can eat!”.
It might work as a backup option to people who are less lucky. That's the majority of the world. Whether it's a good option depends on a situation.
In any case, it's not for you to judge if it's necessary or not.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beanie_Babies
Before you get all worked up about "crypto is better than tulips!", I'm primarily responding to your question by saying that _just because_ people are willing to pay (sometimes exorbitant amounts) for something doesn't imply it has that value.
I prefer to think of value as a function of rarity and utility. I'll skip over rarity but utility can include the possibility of selling something for more than it was purchased at some time in the future.
If someone pays an exorbitant amount for something it has that value to them at the time of purchasing. Whether that value is reflected in the market price or persists over time is something else though. Value is not static. Value is dynamic. You can observe this both personally and in the markets.
Crypto does nothing. Or you could argue, it 'entertains'. But in a way that is unnecessary (it's a distraction, not entertainment), and in a manner that creates unnecessary energy costs (PoW vs PoS).