There's no perfect system, but what we have right now is better than anything from the past, and it's only getting better. Anyway, I think under-regulation is worse than over-regulation.
Sure, there are problems, as with all new things. But the problems will be fixed eventually, and the legal system with be better because of it.
People doing something weird, and different and new and probably illegal, is THE way that our legal system gets better, as we learn to deal with new things, that might be bad OR good. And decide whether these illegal things should stay illegal, or become legal.
Over regulation limits innovation. We should only look to regulate when there is obvious and catastrophic harm. We can regulate after the fact, once we better understand the emerging system and the impacts it has. If potential harm is big, then it makes sense to regulate first.
The cost of regulation is harder to see then the benefits, but there is a cost.
Not to mention, do you not believe individuals have agency in this world? Why should you decide what I do with my money (assuming it harms no one)?
Who decides what harms others and what doesn't?