i don't wish to address every point you make but these two points struck me:
The more I learn about financial markets in all forms the more I want to have eggs in as many baskets as possible. I know that goes against the "100% vanguard index fund allin" plan advocated in general here. Mustachianism resonates powerfully with me, though I can't figure out why that one specific investment vehicle has taken over this world to the exclusion of others, when nearly everything else about Mustachianism is about moderation/restraint.
Having all your money invested in a 100% US Vanguard index fund certainly isn't putting your funds into every single basket. But it sure is a lot of baskets.
I'm writing this as an Australian who has around 50% allocated to international indexes. I wish I could have the US domestic market as my home market as it's significantly more diverse than Australia (which like Canada is dominated by resources and financial companies).
No market is perfect, but the stockmarket is a workable compromise that offers diversification, some degree of transparency, reasonable regulatory oversight, a ready market of buyers and sellers and liquidity. It's a functional proxy for the US economy, but structured in such a way that you can get in and out without too many transactions costs. Which is made easier via an index fund.
If 100% stocks isn't your thing then you could go to one of the blended life strategy funds that mixes in international exposure, as well as fixed interest, property or whatever mix they are offering.
You probably know about these options and they may not be for you and that's fine.
I thought I'd point it out however as the idea of wanting to maximise your return by slicing and dicing every single egg to put it into every single basket is potentially a case of over thinking, over optimising and spending energy to maximise returns, but engaging in an exercise that really offers marginal benefits.
Don't forget that the more time you spend trying to become an expert in crypto currency, index investing, stock picking etc etc, is less time you spend going surfing, hiking, learning new recipes, riding a bike which are investments with undeniably tangible returns on mental and physical health. Frankly, squeezing a few more extra per cent out of a asset allocation is a waste of your precious time on this planet compared to enriching your experiential world!
(Woops, that escalated quickly).
From a philosophical standpoint the reason why you buy bitcoin for example, over microsoft stock that is using open source bitcoin code, is for the reason my economics 101 prof taught me long before crypto existed: that the marble wrapped huge bank building is a wasteful monument to the past. The physical operation of it wastes money and the armies of employees and executives that run each bank siphon tremendous amounts of money out of the financial ecosystem to make trusted transactions possible. But we use it, he said, because of habit, because change is ponderous, because it is entrenched, and mainly because we have no other option.
Once you realize that cumbersome and expensive system is suddenly optional it opens up a whole new perspective. And once you participate in it and realize how game changing it could be you want to share it with everyone.
I love the reference to "marble wrapped huge bank building is a wasteful monument to the past".
The recent GFC experience of staid trading banks mutating into excessively risk taking investment banks has undermined my faith in the role banks have in lubricating the economy. All the douchebags banker types acting without moral hazard, snorting cocaine, stealing from clients, defrauding their own companies and driving expensive sports cars makes their claim as having a critical role in the efficient allocation of capital in a sophisticated economy seem really dubious. Australia has by comparison with the US a very strictly regulated banking regime dominated by 4 banks which run as a stable, but uncompetitive cartel. It's the price we seem to think we need to pay for stability.
So i'm sympathetic to the idea of certain technologies having a disruptive effect on the status quo.
However, as much as you'd like it to be, it doesn't necessarily follow that crypto currency innovation is the silver bullet to central bank control over an economy, on a societal and economic level. There's a whole range of intertwined and vested interests, from bankers to individuals, that have a lot to lose from the current system, and little to gain from whatever is being proposed.
And similarly, it doesn't following that buying crypto currency is a good investment on an individual level. The volatility is too high, the risk of your investment going to zero is too real, there are no earnings, it has no yield. It has no market fundamentals.
The only thing going for it is price appreciation. Which has obviously made it extremely successful as a speculative play for some.
As always, eager to learn more.