If a traditional startup is valued at $10M, I'm sure many founders would choose abandon it and take $5M in cash if only they could. The difference is that the liquidity is not there, so the option doesn't exist. In crypto, protocol founders may not start the project with the goal of abandoning it, but once they can choose between cashing out with $5M by abandoning it, they take that route because they can. People then call this a "rug pull" or "ponzi scheme" but I don't think the intentions are the same.
With startups, the "value" comes from investors who are willing to buy stock at a certain price with certain conditions, one of which is that the rule of law prevents you from stealing company money. If that law were not there, or could not be relied upon, investors would not be willing to invest at that price, and the "value" would be much less.
Or at least, that is my theory of how things should work, because crypto valuations seem to have proved me wrong.
Even if someone is so stupid that they design a Stablecoin backed by leverage that fails if the market goes down 20%, that is malice by negligence, because that stupid person should know that they do not have the capabilities to produce what they are promoting to people. If they are doing harm to society they must be stopped; motive is really not important.