That's still a choice. Pretending that it isn't doesn't do anyone any favors. Having more time to alter the course is not something you can just write off.

Libertarians have a value set that is extremely specific and this makes the philosophy extremely sensitive to being opposed to even the most dogmatic of policy agendas. This is how you get essentially blood feuds between libertarian factions - Rothbard's legacy vs Rand's legacy, Mises Institute vs CATO, etc - over the variants of libertarianism.

The typical approach for libertarians faced with this sensitivity is to opt-out of the broader conversation entirely as if this puts us above it. "Ah, they both suck." isn't an enlightened perspective. It's how everyone except the personality cultists already feel. It's how everyone has felt in American politics since forever. The whole country is built upon resolving the conflicts of mutuality opposing factions, by overcoming everyone's "you-all-suck" impulse.

There is almost certainly plenty for libertarians to lose with the election of the kind of progressive fascism Harris represents. Trump doesn't have to support getting rid of the income tax to offer a meaningful distinction against Harris' radicalism. I would absolutely take the ravings of a narcissist over a power-hungry ideologue.

Again, even if you think the ultimate vision of trump is something you wouldn't accept, there is room to realize that participation is still in your best interest. Bitcoin isn't going to save you when they serve search warrants on your home and seize your cold stores. When they do forensics on the blockchain to figure out which wallets are yours, which bitcoins are yours, and blacklist them.

No, there is plenty to lose if the momentum dies in the progressive direction.