> So, rather than the consumer being responsible for their actions you support consumers engaging in whatever risky behavior they like as long as someone else is there to protect them or give them a do-over?

Yes. Every time you make a foolproof system the world brings us a bigger fool. I'd rather a few irresponsible people get a do-over than a few otherwise responsible people get rekt like this.

Well the "trust me bro" marketers (and developers) have told them this is all good. Is it responsible, idk, probably not.

Then again, the point the GP seems to make is that this kind of platform should not be adopted for anything important, let the gamblers gamble if they want but don't try to sell it to the general public.

Consumer protections protect against fraud. Not "risky behaviors".

The consumer in this case needs to be world class security expert (as "just" being good enough to be core bitcoin developer is clearly not enough) to just not lose money.

That's unreasonable for something that's supposed to be used as money

This is a false dichotomy.

There is a big middle ground between "cover for users engaging in whatever risky behavior they like" and "cover for nothing whatsoever".

In this case, the problem is expecting users to be perfectly diligent, and either discard all convenience or all security.

Cryptocurrency continues to be a case study demonstrating why so many of the systems it's trying (unsuccessfully) to replace operate in ways that it doesn't.