This. They think scarcity alone will bring value (price appreciation) if it is done decentralized. Oblivious to the fact that without the utility of being a p2p payment system with very broad (read: millions can use it simultaneously) access (read: low fees, not no fees!), on the network itself brings most part of the value, not scarcity - we want to use it for trade, so because it is secure (decentralization is part of security, not utility), through this utility it gains economic value, therefore continuing securing it brings income, competitive mining occurs, security rises, we trust it even more etc.. This is a self reinforcing scenario, IF, and only if we keep in mind, that the end is to have a value exchange network, not a digital collectible, without economic action. This is what free market money after all, the value is given only by how much economic activity it makes possible (money trade>> barter trade), aka it's utility, not by the physical properties themselves - those are just features, enforcing the "mass illusion"!

Once again, let me stress it:
For economic purposes, it does not really that important to have this security model, the consensus mechanism (longest chain rules all) is only there to skip the need for trusted parties, hence making value exchange smoother and cheaper - by reducing transaction and maintenance costs (and by accident making it permisionless, and voluntary!).
Network decentralization is a feature, to reach value exchange without 3rd parties, not an end in itself. The point is:

"   A  purely   peer-to-peer   version   of   electronic   cash   would   allow   online
payments   to   be   sent   directly   from   one   party   to   another   without   going   through   a
financial institution"

Core people might forgot this, but PoW mining, decentralization, OS, and p2p are only means to that end: a trustless payment system.