> Does it make sense to say that people stealing iPhones is an "unintended consequence" of the iPhone?
To torture the metaphor a bit, crypto is more like an iPhone competitor which markets itself around the supposed benefits of not having anti-theft features like factory reset protection. If you go out of your way to refuse already existing safeguards against your stuff being stolen then you don't really get to be surprised when thieves single you out as an easy mark.
The metaphor implies that iPhones aren't routinely stolen. But they are, iPhone theft is actually pretty common.
Although the crypto might be relevant being attacked is something that any asset owner has to worry about (even for assets like houses, oddly enough - I suspect big mansions would be something of a thief draw). The attacks are unintended consequences of wealth as opposed to any specific property of crypto - having an equal amount of cash on hand isn't safe either.
To torture the metaphor a bit, crypto is more like an iPhone competitor which markets itself around the supposed benefits of not having anti-theft features like factory reset protection. If you go out of your way to refuse already existing safeguards against your stuff being stolen then you don't really get to be surprised when thieves single you out as an easy mark.