Why did you use the word objectively here? It seems like people objectively do use this stuff, though you possibly don't think that they're actually getting value out of it. Ethereum likely has more users than anything either of us will ever build.
No meaningful percentage of the global population uses crypto and a large majority that do are bad actors, either in their use or their motivations for marketing it's "uses". Maybe "relatively" would have been better but the point is the same.
For a currency that is not issued by a sovereign state and purports to be useful for day to day transactions and a hedge against inflation, that's not a high bar.
It would be a high bar for a currency whose purpose is to facilitate dark or illicit transactions, though.
Unfortunately the valuations seem to have been predicated on the former use case, not the latter
I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm assuming "your" means eth, which I'm not directly talking about in my response. I'm talking about the failure of crypto adoption that's original purpose was a fast, cheap and decentralized currency - none of which has come to fruition and by the looks of it, never will.
Why did you use the word objectively here? It seems like people objectively do use this stuff, though you possibly don't think that they're actually getting value out of it. Ethereum likely has more users than anything either of us will ever build.