Before the inevitable downvotes: I do not endorse crypto, but I understand it better than most people because I work with it every day at my job. I am forced to understand it simply because my job requires it. So I will address the points you made and why I think they are weak arguments against crypto.
The barrier to entry is daunting
Is it? You go to one of the many mainstream crypto brokers like Kraken or Binance and you make an account and start trading. Is that any more daunting than going to a bank website and opening up a new checking account?
Almost everytime I hear about it, it is related to a scam.
Okay? I hear about scams involving the US Dollar every single day. I’m not boycotting the US Dollar because it is commonly involved in scams. Every single unit of currency is subject to this problem; crypto is not special or unique in this regard.
The freedom it gives you to get what you need is the same freedom that allows organized crime, terrorist organizations, and sanctioned countries avoid scrutiny a lot easier.
This is the same argument the feds use to argue against cryptography as a whole. “Bad people can use this technology for bad things, so we should be against it.”. The cartels murder thousands of people every year over the US Dollar but nobody’s boycotting that for some reason.
Most are a risky investment
Anyone getting into crypto who thinks it isn’t a risky investment has been lied to. No different from a shitty financial advisor (not a fiduciary) telling you to invest in meme stocks and blindly believing them.
IMO the best genuine argument against crypto is that proof-of-work models are an environmental fucking disaster (which is not to say that printing paper money does not also have a disastrous environmental impact). Proof-of-stake models are better but are not perfect. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. Crypto was founded under idealistic principles but it has been implemented in very flawed ways. But I say don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
I don’t think anyone in this thread is saying that you aren’t making the choice to not let someone die.
People are just expecting you to be able to handle being asked, “Why did you let 10 people die when there was an option for you to only let 1 person die instead?”
The trolley being on the warpath isn’t your fault; but you did have the option to reduce the number of deaths by taking action. Through your choice, an objectively larger number of people suffered, died, or lost a loved one. And for some actual reason you didn’t pull the lever other than “I’m not a murderer.”
We understand you aren’t a murderer. You aren’t intending to hurt anyone. But through your action, you can reduce the number of people murdered. Don’t be surprised when people are confused at your lack of rationale.