While I disagree with your post, that last frank comment made me smile.
Also, taking philosophy from Hollywood movies is a bad idea. That's entertainment, not ethics, philosophy, or morals. Its overall very shallow in terms of thinking. And I don't think anyone ever thought Star Wars Episode 3 was a thoughtful deep movie.
---------
The philosophical discussion of moral relativity vs moral absolutism is hundreds of years old IIRC. Plenty of ethical people believe in absolutes. Plenty of other ethical people prefer moral relativism. I don't think we'd settle the discussion here in any case.
Bypassing the absolute vs relativism discussion for a second, it has become abundantly clear that major cryptocoin groups, from Mt. Gox, to FTX, to Voyager, to Celsius, to Binance and more... have stolen funds from their users and otherwise mismanaged money.
And not in a "kinda-similar way to banks". I mean completely, and utterly lied about their operations entirely, to a way unfathomable to mainstream finance groups (be it a bank, shareholder, bondholder or more).
The cryptocoin world needs to learn how to establish trust in its system. The primary currency of banks isn't money, but trust. (Mostly: trust that your money will come back). Cryptocoiners have failed time-and-time again.
----------
If we think in terms of absolutism, I think we can say that lying and stealing from others is universally wrong. As FTX did to its customers.
If we discuss moral relativism, cryptocoins are *relatively* more stealing / less reliable / more cheating than their competitors at Paypal, Visa, Mastercard, and other such financial institutions. SIVB and FRC got all their money back, but we all know someone who lost money at Mt. Gox, Celsius, Voyager, or FTX, right?
So its a lose-lose regardless of your personal stance on the matter.
(You need >500 karma--I only have 200 as of writing this)
(I'm just kidding btw, and my last message is missing the /s too)
I don't think it's a very good currency (in the tx time/volume sense), but I think viewing crypto's viability as an all-or-nothing game is unreasonable--that includes both those for it and those against it. As for your assertions about failures:
- CEXs have failed (in the worst way possible too, see MtGox, BTC-e, FTX), but that doesn't mean they have all failed--or that there isn't a future for them.
- Hardware wallets haven't failed at all really. Like, Trezor and Ledger are the largest I think, and those are fine AFAIK. Are you referring to Ledger's recent news with the optional update including a backdoor for those that want to sync keys with Ledger's new service? (Seems like a dumb business decision imho, seems oxymoronic--hardware wallet as a service? lol)
- Soft wallets have been hacked and are risky, but I think the success rate here is pretty high. A large percent of crypto users use soft wallets like Brave's Wallet and MetaMask, the vast majority of these are fine AFAIK. Not exactly safe IMO, but considering the amount of people who use them and haven't been hacked, this is certainly not an obvious "failure"
Also, unrelated to crypto, but reducing people who disagree with you to "kool-aid drinkers" and "accidentally correct people" is a negative life choice IMO
* I think you are capable of not thinking in absolutes, I just wanted to be mean on the internet