It makes sense.
In my experience the primary goal for most crypto holders is to be a part of a new elite. This is why the most popular currencies have a fixed supply. That way, if they're popular earlier adopters get to be a part of the elite. With such a premise it makes sense to treat crypto like the lottery as the gain/loss likelihood is very similar to say, Mega Millions.
I do see value in a crypto that's pinned at a weighted average of every single currencies' worldwide weight. That way you get the advantage of crypto, but it's a perfectly stable currency. Needless to say, very few people at least on HN have bragged about owning an inflationary crypto currency. Why? Because they're not getting rich nor is there an opportunity for them to be a part of the techno-elite.
My biggest concern is a fixed-supply currency gives no government the ability to provide stimulus if necessary. Many advocates argue that governments shouldn't provide stimulus but history shows that's generally a terrible idea (the gold standard, for example, contributed in some ways to The Great Depression).
EDIT: I don't feel like responding individually, but I will say that I've read both the Bitcoin and Ethereum whitepaper and there's nothing about grievances of traditional governments usage of printing of their currencies.
I feel that the "that's a feature" is more a post-hoc rationalization that allows one to say they're in the right while simultaneously benefiting early adopters. Regardless, every government in world history that's pinned their currency to something that's relatively fixed has had a severe depression with some part of that depression being contributed to said pinning. It's just not good economics. Feel free to respond with a contrary example if you'd like.