Haha, Hal Finney (the recipient of the first bitcoin transaction, and probably even Satoshi Nakamoto himself) wrote about this idea 11 years ago:
"Any successful replacement of the Bitcoin block chain will forever undermine the credibility of any successor. How is an investor to know that it won't happen again?" — Hal Finney
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=10666.msg152988#msg1...
I don't happen to see why financial innovation has to require a complete disregard of all that has gone before it and a presumption that astonishing naivety and hubris are entry requirements. But then, what do I know.
0. Can the business model be made sustainable long-term?
1. Does it create value for almost all participants?
2. Is it secured by governance, policies, tech, and auditing (internal and external) from malicious actor(s)?
If the answer to any or all is "no", then it's probably a variant pyramid scheme.
The "innovation" here was taking money from your customers, failing to account for it, and then losing it.
This is how the state does a new thing in. He lets it run wild. And if it can self-contain and restrain, have a concept of governence and self-regulation, you will get away with a lot. But crypto did not.
Crypto did not pass the test, the only thing it was good at, was destabilizing the aristocracy of totalitarian governments, by offering them monetary escape routes.
So the tech will life on in the belly of the financial institutions, the rest, well nothing of value was lost.
SBF and his Smegol counterpart will be around as long as they can avoid the people who didn't have the funds to lose.