It's bizarre to argue that such a service is equally deserving of the rare privilege of government intervention to protect losers as a financial product whose unique selling point is stability and government intervention to prevent deposit holders. And of all the entities governments could theoretically bail out from badly run "unicorns" to individuals who can't make mortgage payments to Vegas gambling addicts, crypto is arguably the least deserving, and as a mostly-self contained shell game it had no contagion effect on the economy at all. There's no double standard whatsoever.
(The glee came from imagining it was the sort of person that spent their time running round the internet saying "enjoy being poor" that lost out - which unfortunately, it was probably mostly wasn't - but whether that was misdirected or not, it doesn't make gambling tokens that use lack of government oversight as a marketing angle something the government has special responsibility to prop up)