I find it quite distressing to see people flailing around wildly like this. You offer far too vague a problem statement to take seriously at face value, any significant effort to respond would be futile because its substance would simply disappear into the definitional chasms running through your sketchy landscape.

Progress in this area is most unlikely to happen without a lot more informed effort being devoted to characterising the users. The most generous phrase I can find to describe the current effort is "hopelessly amateur". It's generous because the ineptitude is an obvious consequence of the influence of a technical community that openly prides itself on its ignorance of psychology, sociology, semiotics, marketing and other disciplines of the “soft sciences”. If you really can't articulate the details of the key factors underlying Dogecoin's undeniable appeal to users then you shouldn't aspire to hold an opinion on the subject.

If you think that's a bit brutal, I can offer this adapted quote: “You really have no business creating your own cryptocurrency if you don't understand marketing well enough to figure out how to achieve large-scale adoption without somebody else's help.”

A moment's reflection should inform you that each of the cited examples (celeb endorsement, corporate adoption or government takeover) is merely a proxy for “just about anyone with a well-resourced and effective marketing function” (which, you may be astounded to learn, does not equate to “advertising”).

Cheers

Graham