Maybe true, but in a way, classical investments are even more complicated. Some of them are even deliberately complicated to obfuscate their risky nature to naive investors.
If you're referring to more exotic instruments, those are off limits to mainstream folks, only available (in the US at least) to accredited investors with enough discretionary wealth they won't go homeless if they lose their investment.
In either case, a lot of effort goes into mitigating the cognitive load for mainstream non-expert investors.
"Not as bad as" is broadly fallacious, anyway.
It's a human invention we have collectively chosen to value more than the thing it was presumably created to serve — you know, "humanity". Any tool that becomes more important than the lives and well-being of the folks that tool was invented to benefit (that is: all of us [0]), I'd submit, needs some serious critical re-examination.
I'm not holding my breath on that happening any time soon, though.
Your question is a complete non-sequitur, anyway. It's entirely possible to create systems and stores of value that aren't as abusable, abusive, exploitable, exploited, and just generally bad (or at least less good) for the overwhelming majority of the monkeys involved in its circulation and use, as compared to "money".
[0] If your counter is that it doesn't have to serve all of us, then I'd say it was the wrong tool out the gate.
That is: "But CDOs" isn't materially responsive to "BTC is complicated."