Every single problem that cryptocurrencies face are extremely well known and studied phenomena in traditional economics. It is all very predictable.
Some are lying about it being different, some are willfully ignorant, and some are just clueless, but they were all excited to start something up in this new and exciting industry where people were literally throwing money at them.
"The panic might have deepened if not for the intervention of financier J. P. Morgan, who pledged large sums of his own money and convinced other New York bankers to do the same to shore up the banking system. That highlighted the limitations of the US Independent Treasury system, which managed the nation's money supply but was unable to inject sufficient liquidity back into the market."
This led to the creation of the Federal Reserve System.
Those lending companies closing down are basically centralized platforms very much like the legacy financial system. This take is the same type of uneducated comment that someone does while attributing actions done by say Coinbase to crypto as a system.
Those are internal database tasks. I'm sure the IT staff at Lehman Brothers could have run defrag jobs and swapped backup tapes until the Sun went out. That wasn't the problem at Lehman.
The bitcoin network can process blocks when a bitcoin is worth $10,000 or $1 or $0.00001. The problem is that in the last two cases, economically, nobody would care if bitcoin is still processing blocks.
That's optimistic.
The idea is solid, but a wiping of the slate will allow for a new generation. One that will better benefit established powers.
https://www.finance-watch.org/lessons-from-history-vii-tulip...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/there-never-was-real-...
You are unwittingly making the argument that traditional finance, or the future thereof, is (/ "should be") tulip bulbs. Perhaps not the worst of arguments, but probably not your intention to advocate as you have that traditional finance become tulip bulbs.