RE: Uncertainty avoidance

I think the interest in crypto might largely depend on what social circles you exist within and which information sources you trust.

To expound on that further we could look at the various types of users of steemit for a microcosm of how this plays out, but I guess I won't for now because we're talking about a select few countries in the first part. There are more than a few people who follow some information sources that lead them to believe that centralized banking or governments are not to be trusted and they've been informed that crypto is the answer. There are some late-comers who've been told it's a nice scheme to make fast money. The list goes on.

The second grouping of nations is kind of surprising but maybe the biggest thing that ties them together is that they all have histories of trading with other nations via sea routes, whereas Japan had a closed society for a very long time, Greece kind of turned inward after a few invasions or two by outside empires, and Taiwan was (is?) not a country at all (their natives got decimated as they were displaced by Kuomintang forces, so it can be argued that they're culturally and ethnically very similar to the Chinese, who are also very insular).

Being risk-averse has a lot to do with it as far as your assumptions on women go, but everyone is an individual and everyone's risk tolerance is different. It could also be argued that the social circles and conversations that women are a part of explains why so many are the last to arrive in the crypto space, from what we've seen it's only recently that talk of crypto really hit strides on networks like twitter or ig, yet it's been discussed for much longer on places like reddit, which is male-dominated. The gender ratios alone on the networks that talked about crypto first meant that many more who had even the smallest exposure to crypto-talk would be male, at least in the early days.

If it all comes down, crashing and burning with mostly male shouts of panic and agony, there are going to be a lot of women who chose to withhold from the insanity telling their male counterparts infinite "I told you so"s.

Edited it just a... bit, lol.

After looking at the wiki and seeing what is cited there I'm not quite sure it all means much of anything, they're talking about ambiguity and it's kind of a nonsensical test of red and blue balls and one having a risky outcome versus one choice having an ambiguous or unknown outcome.

Women initially respond to ambiguity much more favorably than men, but as ambiguity increases, men and women show similar marginal valuations of ambiguity. Psychological traits are strongly associated with risk but not to ambiguity. Adjusting for psychological traits explains why a gender difference exists within risk aversion and why these differences are not a part of ambiguity aversion. Since psychological measures are related to risk but not to ambiguity, risk aversion and ambiguity aversion are distinct traits because they depend on different variables

And it may all be context-sensitive, so one measure of ambiguity might not apply everywhere, as detailed further down

One surprising feature of the results was that the links between choices in the single person decision and those in the games was not strong. Subjects appeared to perceive a greater level of ambiguity in a two-person coordination game, than a single person decision problem. More generally the results suggested that perceptions of ambiguity and even attitudes to ambiguity depend on context. Hence it may not be possible to measure ambiguity-attitude in one context and use it to predict behaviour in another.

Not saying you didn't read the wiki, just saying that ambiguity related science is still very nascent and they're pretty... ambiguous about how it all works.