Moreover I don't see how free a society would be if cryptocurrencies became widely accepted and early adopters began to pass cryptocurrency inheritances from one generation to another. The descendants of the early adopters would be a new type of landed gentry, with a mathematical moat. It doesn't seem like a reasonable way to organize society.

"We"?

Other people have other problems they're trying to solve and you don't care about those problems, so you do not understand "why crypto." If you want to understand "why crypto," be concerned with other problems. You've already decided what is important, and that blinds you to understanding the motivations of others.

> It's bad for the environment

Not any more so than other forms of energy consumption. If anything, Bitcoin incentivizes the use of clean renewable energy. https://niccarter.info/topics/

> bad for crime

Hard to even parse what that means given how much crime is committed via dollars. https://unchained-capital.com/blog/bitcoin-is-not-for-crimin...

> bad for laymen

Meaningless drivel.

> undemocratic (vote with money)

Bitcoin is both undemocratic AND is not a "vote with money" type of system. Governance is unrelated to who holds it. https://www.lopp.net/bitcoin-information/governance.html

> no knobs to adjust monetary/fiscal policy

That's a feature.

> it poses as an alternative to government institutions that serve society with things like roads and health care.

Also a feature. https://www.coincenter.org/a-human-rights-activists-response...