Crypto has beauty too. Surely technologists can appreciate an elegant algorithm? Art takes years of craft to perfect, and part of the value of the final piece reflects the years of work that went into training and developing the artist's skills. Well, crypto too is a craft, built on decades of research and centuries of mathematics (much like the long view of art history would say that one school of art influences the next, over centuries). And much like art, not every piece of art appeals to every audience, but that doesn't mean that unpopular art can't have beauty, and likewise just because some may not appreciate the cryptographic beauty of the algorithms and consensus mechanisms behind Bitcoin, doesn't mean it can't have beauty... It just means you might not appreciate it, just like you might not appreciate all pieces of art.

My point is that, if you break the individual elements that contribute to the value of art, and think about why billionaires buy and sell art, then a lot of those first principles for why value exists, can also be applied to crypto (e.g. scarcity, ease of exchange relative to holding gold at least, a sense of value that isn't tied to practical applications, etc.). And in fact, trading pieces of art around and dealing with physical custody and preservation and forgeries/authenticity and "provenance", just seems to be like an inefficient/clunky physical world blockchain with extra steps and ineffective tokens, if you ask me. So really my point is just that, crypto having some inherent value beyond just tulip mania/pump and dump/greater fool/etc., maybe isn't so weird at all.