There are two main points to make here in response to your question. First, it's a mistake to see the speculation in tulip bulbs as an element of the Dutch market in stocks and shares. It was completely separate from it, and is actually best viewed asa sort of imitation of it – essentially, what happened was that the artisan class in the Netherlands was aware that a stock market existed, and that trading in stocks and shares was a possibility. And it was also aware that – thanks originally to a combination of the rarity of the flower and a fashion for developing flower gardens – the price of tulip bulbs was rising steadily. So some people began meeting to buy and sell bulbs, and later promissory notes that gave possession of bulbs that had actually been planted in the ground; they did this for themselves, often meeting in the back rooms of taverns, and developed their own systems of valuing bulbs, recording transactions and so forth. At no point were bulbs commodities that were traded on the Amsterdam stock exchange, so it was not the case that professional traders were dismayed, inconvenienced, or out-thought by novice traders invading "their" market, as was the case recently in the case of Reddit trading groups disrupting the activities of hedge funds. In this sense, your own analogy with regard to cryptocurrency – a new creation that didn't originate within the formal, professionalised currency markets – is actually not a bad parallel for what went on in the Netherlands in the early 17th century.

Second, the bulb mania took place very early on indeed in the history of the modern economy – the Amsterdam stock exchange had been established only about 20 years before bulb speculation began in the Netherlands (which was c.1633, with a major peak, or bubble, during the winter of 1636-7), so there actually wasn't a large class of experienced investors around in the 1630s, nor a modern communications system, incorporating newspapers and other means of publicising news and opinion. All this means that there were relatively few people around to be dismayed, and relatively few ways for us to hear about that dismay if and when it did occur.

What we do have is a large number of contemporary pamphlets condemning the bulb trade. These publications very largely took a moral and religious stance on the speculation in tulips. condemnation of the bulb sellers came mostly in the form of condemnations of the idea that artisans such as weavers would be so foolhardy as to mortgage the tools of their trade to raise capital, then use that to bet on the price of flowers. Perhaps there was an element of fear at the potential for transgression of class roles and even class barriers involved in some cases, but for the most part the objections were religious ones.

Source

Mike Dash, Tulipomania (1999)