I find the whole FIRE thing a little odd. Why would you spend your entire life on a short budget just to 'retire early'. Besides, how enjoyable is that retirement if you're constantly fighting to pinch every penny you can.
Personally, if my partner dropped £1000 on something goofy like this, and all bills were paid, I'd probably cheer them on. There's nothing wrong with spending money on something that's got no purpose other than making people smile/laugh/what have you.
You're not missing anything. I've developed a prototype blockchain for a supply chain before at the behest of a non-technical manager at some point. You hit the nail on the head with the problem of crossing into the real world. You can't validate the real world object mathematically, so if you lie to the blockchain, there's no way to tell.
So far the only use case that I can really find for this are digital identity systems where the blockchain itself serves a double purpose as both a highly redundant system, and a byzantine fault tolerant distributed storage system. I can see the value in being able to maintain a strong ledger of ID uses. The EU looked into this from what I understand, and I think they stood up a system for this kind of thing.
My big TLDR from working on chaincode and stuff like that is this: if your goal is to have a high security digital asset (eg: tokens and ID certs), then a blockchain might be useful. If your goal is to interface with the real world, then you're just going to be chaining yourself to a bulky inelegant solution that won't even address your core problem.
Don't forget that in the initial source-code, Yarvin called the planets and moons, dukes and earls. To me, that's a pretty clear indicator that feudalism was on his mind at the time of developing the software.
There's a lot to be said for separating the art from the artist (Heidegger always comes to mind). That being said, if the art is an expression of the ideas that are considered reprehensible, then it becomes much harder.
With the example of Heidegger, his core works, including Being and Time, did not expound upon his Nazi sympathies. Had Being and Time instead be a work which deeply integrated Nazi ideology, the dialog around the work would be significantly different. Instead, a clean line can be drawn between Heidegger the Nazi, and Heidegger's work.
With Yarvin on the other hand, his work actually expounds upon the ideology he created. There's no clear way to draw a line between Yarvin's ideology, and Yarvin's software, since they're so deeply linked.
If I recall correctly, the entire point of Urbit's design philosophy was to demo the neo-cameralist ideology that Curtis Yarvin came up with. While the poster above is taking flack, I'd argue that, at this point, there's no way to split the ideology behind Yarvin, and the design of Urbit.