However, whatever financial risk you would like to tolerate, you should make sure you're pursuing goals that do in fact match that financial risk, and that you're not concluding that something more or less risky than it is because you are uninformed. Also, if you are tolerating increased risk, you should do so because there is a purpose for it (e.g, better potential upside), not because high financial risk seems inherently cool. It isn't, and I will certainly defend that point, but it's just a lemma on the way to my actual point.

Arguing that it's okay that cryptocurrencies are hackable because the traditional financial system is hackable is simply factually incorrect: it's a misunderstanding of why the existing financial system looks the way it does, and why its risk tolerances are built the way it is (not a lot done to secure transactions, but a lot done to be able to reverse transactions if needed).

If you really want a simple point out of me, I think G. K. Chesterton made it in 1929:

> In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

If you do not understand the existing financial system, you cannot honestly claim that your new one is better. First figure out how it works and why, and get that right, then you can describe how your changes are improvements.