> I understand where you are right now, but the fact is central banks aren’t knowingly creating inequality ...

Phew ... what else is happening when most (if not all) of this money is brought into the economy at the level of financial assets?

Do poor people get to see any of this money? Give me one example except for the US one time payment to citizens.

Easy conclusion, if poor people aren't seeing any of this additional money: higher inequality.

Another post here mentions the Cantillon Effect. If you haven't done so already you might want to read up on that.

> I’m not going to persuade you now, so I wont try. Put a pin in your expectations for the future and revisit this in a few years or a decade’s time. Look at whether any of the extreme outcomes you are predicting now came anywhere even close to actually happening, and why they didn’t happen. Look back now at your opinions in the past of what extreme outcomes would have happened by now. Has any of it come to pass?

Well, a few years (3-4 maybe) back only "conspiracists" (including me) were warning/worrying about the danger that loose monetary policy would inevitably lead to high inflation (in the long term). There were these economists/journalists trying to wiggle their way out of the simple (and IMO true) equation (additional money supply without according increase in productivity leads to inflation) by coming up with fancy concepts like modern monetary theory MMT.
What do people in the US face right now? Exactly, high inflation. And no, it's not going to be temporary. Recently even Mr Powell, who'd very much prefer to announce otherwise, has stated that the currently higher (than desired) inflation level is _not_ expected to be oh so temporary. https://text.npr.org/1064478567

My conclusion: my worries were more right than what the majority of news/people claimed, who dismissed all of it as nonsense.

> Crypto in particular was supposed to have taken over as the payment method of choice, with near costless micro transactions funding amazing new businesses previously impossible.

True, bitcoin started out with this goal. At least that was stated, nobody knows exactly what Nakamoto thought when they developed the concept. Might have been different from what was explicitly stated for the sake of the thing gaining more attraction in the beginning than it would probably have, had they instead called it digital gold or similar.

> Instead it’s turned into a ridiculous ponzi cult, ...

Yep, for the moment it definitely has the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. But that's not to say it has to be like this forever (I'm sure one can come up with lots of systems/things that have in the past started out with Ponzi characteristics to then develop into something different) ... were bitcoin to become practically ubiquitous (with no additional potential users left to join in because all of them already have) ... well, then the whole thing would either collapse (proving you right) ... or the price would simply flatten out at whatever number and remain in some dynamic equilibrium with (of course) a certain level of fluctuation.

> ... criminal financing network, ...

Not a very good argument. Bitcoin is definitely not (and most likely won't ever be) the system, that criminals prefer doing their dirty business with. Compare with cash.

> ... and a way for wealthy dilettantes and rich world teenage gamers to collect imaginary fashion statements. It’s an utter farce and a complete betrayal of its founding principles and goals.

Honestly, who cares and in what way does it harm you? As long as bitcoin delivers the service of being a more stable store of value than central bank issued currencies it'll be useful enough to ignore whatever nonsense people do with it.