There's a wide variety of technological innovations, known collectively as cryptocurrencies, that are being lumped together here by some into one vague idea of dodgy speculative assets, money laundering schemes and so on. But I would challenge anyone to do an hour or two of real research into, e.g., Ethereum and not be impressed. Other than that, yes, cryptocurrencies are VOLATILE. That doesn't imply "dodgy". It simply means if you are investor, you have to have confidence enough in the long-term prospects of the technology you are investing in that you can stomach 90%+ drawdowns to get your eventual 1000%+ return. You also have to understand the market. Most internet start-ups, even wildly hyped ones, failed. Similarly, most cryptocurrencies will go to zero and some will do so because they were scams, ponzi schemes or otherwise worthless. But there will also be Amazons, Googles, and Apples. The right orientation towards cryptocurrencies imo is to see them as opportunities; first, for research and understanding, and then and only then, for investment. The majority of posters here don't seem to have got anywhere significant with the first step before giving their opinion on the second.

It appears that a lack of regulation inevitably leads to disaster in markets of this type. Or do you think some entities are just more upstanding than others? And if so, how would you identity them?

It appears that a lack of regulation inevitably leads to disaster in markets of this type. — frank

:up:

It appears that a lack of regulation inevitably leads to disaster in markets of this type — frank

That's not an unfair comment, but it depends to a degree what you mean by "disaster". The FTX, LUNA and 3AC debacles could be characterised that way, but those who invested responsibly in things they understood, followed best practices, and kept an eye on the market, most likely made money. And the overall market (though volatile) continues to expand at an impressive pace, so there are dangers and opportunities there. What's desirable imo is a reasonable regulatory framework that curbs the worst excesses of the market but still leaves room for the freedom to take risks in pursuit of returns, i.e. for personal responsibility.

do you think some entities are just more upstanding than others? And if so, how would you identity them? — frank

Absolutely. And they can be identified by research and paying attention. LUNA was an algorithmic stablecoin and so prone to collapse like every one of its type before. Anyone paying close attention knew this and therefore knew at least some of the risks involved, which became more and more apparent closer to the time of its collapse. Similarly, warnings were plentiful before FTX went bankrupt.

As for cryptocurrencies themselves, the difference between a random memecoin and an, e.g. Layer 1 cryptocurrency is huge. The Ethereum foundation, for example, are good actors with a well-established product in the Ethereum network, which has clear battle-tested functionality, very obvious practical long-term uses, and a deflationary cryptocurrency, Ether, that despite the recent crash is up 2000% since the lows of March 2020. Dogecoin is an inflationary memecoin--disparaged as a joke even by its founder--that was popularized by one dude, Elon Musk, and has multiplied massively in value, but has a future largely dependent on whether or not he feels like clowning around with it again. No prizes for spotting the more reliable entity there.