Sam Bankman-Fried is the perfect argument against this. He went into crypto because of ethical reasons (to make a shit ton of money and donate it to the most effective charities and organizations, he's prominent in Effective Altruism circles).
I think he's the richest 29 year old ever? Maybe Zuckerberg beat him, but $22.5Bn isn't bad in 3.5 years!
I'm not so sure. When, as currently, that wealth is generated based on the losses of speculators, the conned, or simply poorly informed, then I'd class Bankman-Fried into the robber-baron class who sought to cement their legacies with philanthropic endeavors instead of their ruthless practices. The means by which they accumulate their wealth are the lens through which we should view their "good works".
I'm pretty sure - he was donating 50% of his salary at Jane Street prior to starting his current crypto endeavors and has pledged to donate basically everything over the next few years, of which he's already started. Initially staff at his companies had to donate regularly, 1% of fees from his companies are donated, and he advocates others in the space to do the same. The guy basically lives in his office eating fried veg and rice playing League of Legends in his downtime. That money is being made for charities and predominantly comes by enabling trading, which I don't believe is ethically wrong (his general good, in a utilitarian sense, is definitely higher than any qualms one might have against crypto anyway).
As of now, trading is mostly gambling with a side show of money laundering. Enabling it puts him on the level of a casino empire. I'm not inherently against gambling, but I also wouldn't consider a person to be a saint for plowing 1% of their casino empire's revenue-- or even most of its profits-- into philanthropy.
