btcd
I wish it were labelled cryptoasset instead of cryptocurrency.
In the long-term, the objective nature of Bitcoin should prevail and we'll assess its benefit by whether it is a successful store of value.
On the contrary: the purpose of private banks is almost exclusively for billionaires to move their wealth around, while externalising costs to all of us. Many financial market interventions in the past are the society bailing out billionaires who bet irresponsibly and cannot bear reducing themselves to millionaires.
Bitcoin is fundamentally an asset. A useful analogy is to think of it as gold. Gold can be used to make payments, but it is not convenient. Same goes for Bitcoin. But they are both useful as a robust way of storing value.
Maintaining the Bitcoin network costs energy, but almost nothing else. Given Bitcoin's price history, it's safe to assume that Bitcoin's total energy cost is a tiny fraction of its current market cap of around $150b. Now compare that to the social costs of protecting gold, which probably has an over $7 trillion market cap. Wars were fought and lives lost for its ownership.
In conclusion: a large and liquid crypto asset like Bitcoin provides a much more advanced solution of value storage and transfer than traditional physical assets. Its net social benefits should be orders of magnitudes higher than its energy expenditure.
After all these years of growth, Bitcoin's market cap becomes its own unique edge. One simply cannot transfer significant amount, say tens of millions of dollars, easily in any other crypto currency.
The cost of energy is minuscule compared to alternative means of achieving the same: vaults, guards, banks, lawyers, etc.