Bitcoin and crypto generally are investments in the same way that gambling without paying attention to the odds is. Crypto advocates speak of (rave about, actually) is that it is an “uncorrelated” asset. In other words, there is no basis for it as a “wealth creator” which you can judge in the empirical world.
Bitcoin and other crypto are therefore made valuable in exactly the same way Ponzi schemes and MLM work. There is no inherent value. Their value is purely a matter of belief and the number of new believers. And for there to be a demand, you have to find a reason somewhere in the real world to convince you. For this reason, a thing-to-believe-in is what was the basis/justification of “Satoshi”. Quotes from his email exchanges like this are at the heart of it:

“The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that’s required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust.”

The argument here is that no central bank can be trusted, with no reference to the wrapper: the nation-state. So all are bad. It is also implied that “debasing” a currency is entirely evil and is wholly uncorrelated to standards of living.

These are the ARTICLES OF FAITH of the crypto believers.

A veneer of “respectability” is given these arguments by reference to the views of economics ultimately derived from the so-called Austrian School and are most commonly advocated by “Libertarians”. I have attempted an explanation of who/what/why they are here in this and other articles: https://jsadove.medium.com/the-economic-ideology-of-crypto-and-ddlts-e8f5b476996d

You seem to be some sort of believer in their views, but rail against all the unfairness of the systems they advocate for managing economies. You also don’t seem too familiar with the social democratic state, as it is best exemplified in Germany, but also pretty much all of northern Europe. Correct me if I’m wrong. I may not have read everything of yours but it seems this way.

When you separate economics from general systems of government (as the Austrians did since most of them had no experience of western liberal democracy until fairly long after they started writing) then you get into trouble. See the history of Fascism and Communism.

For this reason, for me, any view about economics is about what system does not leave out: basic human rights and democracy. Democracy can also be corrupted by money and any form of government can, too. But, as I like to compress the issue: an economic/political system is always flawed, so it should be seen as an ongoing project and democracy is the basis for continual improvement. The minute you start taking power away from the project of democratic government for the sake of some ideological view of a flaw, you’re on your way to tyranny.

And tyranny has many friends.