It is fair to call FTX and WeWork tech companies because they built platforms, powered by the internet and apps to modernize legacy offline industries. That's been the definition of a tech company since the 90's dotcom boom.
You can make a cryptocurrency without creating any new tech whatsoever. And you can create a blockchain without creating crypto.
FTX was just an ordinary financial company, AFAICT. It had a bit of software to run the order book, but wasn't run by technical people, had no R&D effort and no obvious reason to develop one, and so on.
WeWork was just a company like any other, I can't see a single factor that could make this be a tech company.
To me, at heart, a tech company must develop some new kind of tech and do so in-house.
You already mentioned WeWork. FTX is another example. Given how few "tech" start-ups and big tech companies actually produce technology as their core product, I guess the sentiment of SBF and FTX being somewhat symptomatic is fair.
To what extent were SBF and Ellison tech though? This trend of labelling more or less any new company that attracts VC funding as tech is bothersome. It's the mental loophole that allowed Adam Neumann to embezzle huge amounts of investor money too (but he did it "right" so gets away with it), by claiming that WeWork wasn't just an office leasing company but a tech platform. None of these people are engineers of any kind, none of them have developed any kind of new tech. They are just ordinary business types who run a business that happens to employ a few coders.