You have a weird definition of rationality. If I am against Malware, a tech I don’t use, that would make me irrational? It’s completely acceptable to take an ethical stance against something you don’t use.
Indeed, if you decide that something is unethical, it would then be surprising if you then choose to use it. That would be irrational.
Let me be real simple, just because you don't like or use something doesn't make it useless. Also drawing comparisons between unrelated technologies is just plain bad, not smart not useful but just bad.
I am not saying crypto should be illegal. I am saying it's a stupid idea for a currency and it's stupid for people to trust it.
If people want to go gamble tons of money, then that's fine, but it is not an investment. No real value is being produced. It is a zero-sum gambling ring that shifts money from one pocket to anoth er. It is musical chairs with bearer bonds.
It enshrines institutional power via truly braindead deflationary policies.
Unless you're an early mover, or pump a ton of money into it later, you essentially have no capability of engaging in the space as anything more than a victim.
Just because you like something doesn't make it useful.
Again you fail the rationality/logic test. Exactly because I like something makes it useful to me. There is no room for others in this equation. I like something, I use something, therefore it's useful.
What you're trying to do is insert your opinion, stated as a fact, into this equation. There is no room for it, nor does the equation call for it. Easiest is for you to simply stay away.