On this one we disagree.
Yes, there are tones of fools, but wise man can make a fortune. It is an experimental lab so many *will* fail.
My idea is that one should not be able to make a fortune without providing value. Gambling on seigniorage doesn't look to me like providing value. "being first adopter" has no meaning. Creating a useful system, yes. Becoming rich because one was betting on it, without financing it as such, no. That's not like a share holder of a company that financed the difficult start of the company. The fact that first adopters gamble on it, doesn't bring in any specific value to the system or to the creator. Their seigniorage is economically unmerited because no value was produced.
The only value one should obtain from a crypto, is the value of being able to do commerce where this was previously impossible/difficult/dangerous etc... In other words, by the economic gain of exchange, made possible by the existence of a crypto. Not by being early adopter and sitting on your stash, limiting market liquidity for commerce.
Agree on most.
The real value comes from the fact that as opposite to IPO, where the company already has a lot of value (so the investor is looking for XX%), crypto scene(ICO) lets the small guy in at a very early stage.
You might considered that also as decentralization of power.
When a big company goes for an IPO the big guys are looking to cash out after they made their fortunes...
As I'm concerned, investing in FB when it had a $1m marketcap is much better than investing it when it's on NASDAQ on a $100B hoping to gain some peanuts.
(Actually FB is not a good example, but you get my point)