I remember a time in the HYIP schemes when everyone that participated in them knew they would flop, but the thing was that the first ones would get their profits, so they participated in a clear ponzi scheme but treated it as a betting game, trying to make sure that they get more than they lose, so my guess is that most involved with ordinals do the same, mint before it's too late, buy and try to sell for a small profit, all before it goes down. One has to remember that despite being somewhat foolish these guys are still one tech level above the average Joe that was purchasing ICOs shares with ETH.
I might of course be completely wrong but I would say less than 5% of the buyers actually believe in holding those for years as an investment!
I would even argue the majority of early users (developers and market makers) set out knowing how it ends, and hoping it ends the same way. So yes to your HYIP mirroring (those guys are still around, they pre-date crypto so I saw them even in the late 90s). It's just dressed up more attractively, with public devs who're happy to pretend they're doing it for the greater good/spirit of crypto but who must surely know they're just starting up yet another train ride on well-beaten tracks.
I've known myself to buy into the odd vanity item -- things I know will never really have the value I fantasise about but still an inconspicuous piece of history I'd like to know I at least did. I've got stamp NFTs from Austrian post to prove I'm not immune to silliness but yeah, I know how it ends.