This only matters if there’s exclusivity to the system. In a non-exclusive system, if the gain in one system is lesser than the gain in a second system, then the preference will be to crash the former system to benefit the latter.
So yes, in the abstract, this solution is reasonable, but in the real, malicious actors will have a strong incentive to gain control over a trusted system in order to destroy it (as a trusted system benefits the malicious barely if at all), and keep people stuck in untrusted systems that the malicious actor derives great benefit from.
Consider the existing world: Money is monopolized by a small group of actors who control nearly all of it — how it’s produced, who has access to it, and what it can be used for. This is an untrusted, malicious system based purely on authority.
Now consider Bitcoin, a trusted, beneficent system, that malicious actors can only control through extreme investment in usurping the system.
However, those self-same malicious actors already control the existing system of account, and all investments into Bitcoin are divestments from existing systems.
Since money can be produced for essentially zero cost by malicious actors, and since all the products used to transact Bitcoin must be purchased with existing monetary systems, it is obviously trivial for malicious actors to gain control over the system if and when they choose to, and stopping people from adopting a beneficent system is of extreme interest to the people who control the malicious system we currently live in.
So, unfortunately, in the real world, your argument doesn’t hold, because the current controllers of the money supply have more to gain from destroying Bitcoin than they do from its survival.