Obviously a sufficiently large number of people do view currencies that are controlled by a single centralized entity as a problem; whether current cryptocurrencies are a solution to that problem is a different debate.
> Obviously a sufficiently large number of people do view currencies that are controlled by a single centralized entity as a problem
Do they? If there were no magic 10x, 100x, and 1000x returns in crypto and it only solved the centralization problem, would even 1 out of 100 current crypto proponents still care about it?
If those lower returns were coupled with lower volatility, I think we'd see more people utilizing crypto, for specific use cases:
a. Instant, negligible-fee ledgers within social cohorts (eg. Algo, Nano, vs Paypal, Zello [a bit of that "anti-corporation" philosophy doesn't hurt here]).
b. Privacy-coins, which also happen to have low fees but are too slow or haven't developed the UX to play that quick social role, so they attract an alternative audience through privacy ideals (eg. Monero).
c. For donations, with the same trade-off between ease of use and privacy depending on the involved parties' preferences.
I'd argue it's the risk of volatility which both drives high returns and suppresses these uses, so a stabilization of market prices would eventually see growth in these use-cases as their potential audience puts proportionally less weight on the risk-factor.
One might not see 1 out of 100 current investors remain, but do think that these audiences could grow to equal or surpass such a small segment of the current interest.
How can you ask that when we are seeing record inflation around the world? Are you really asking if people would prefer a currency that doesn't lose 90+% of its purchasing power over the years?
They used to be close to 100% of the Bitcoin community. It's probably a lower percentage today as it has gained more mainstream adoption. But why does the exact number matter?