A recent WSJ article illustrates this beautifully. The title posits that the value of Bitcoin is "probably zero," based on an odd, snake-eating-its-tail argument: It’s supposed to be a currency, but users treat it more like gold (they save it instead of spending it), so it will never be any good as currency. Even if that's true, who says that this is the only valid use for Bitcoin? Its creator Nakamoto did call it “electronic cash” in his white paper, but there’s no law saying Bitcoin should be this or that. It's a decentralized system that changes over time, and it might end up being something else entirely. The article then changes its tune, saying that it’s possible to view Bitcoin either as a global currency, a currency for criminals, or a store of value similar to gold. Depends on how you see it, its value could be zero, $600 or $61,000. So which is it? The author does not provide a clear answer. Anyone that ever tried to pin down the value of Bitcoin faced this problem. Company stock is fairly simple in comparison. Companies have revenues, earnings, and profit. You can calculate the return on investment, which tells you how much money your stock is earning you.
Didn't realize all you had to do was get a few 100k people in a cult to generate billions in new capital. Live and learn
I found this quote on Reddit, it explains the spirit of this thread: “Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand.” Animals are content to just go about their instinctive business. Humans need an explanation and deep meaning for everything. At the end of the day, it's almost this primitive drive in people that we must now tell ourselves there is a greater logical meaning in a series of events. And sometimes there just isn't."
The double slit paradox is an easter egg in this system. Some may not wish there is a purpose to this system, but there is.