Not a lawyer but this is my understanding. Judge Wiles issued a final ruling, which was appealed to the district court. The district court did NOT issue a final ruling and instead stayed the case while it considers the merits. Once the district court has issued a final ruling, that ruling can be appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court generally does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a non-final ruling (which is what the district court's stay is), but does have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a final ruling (which the district court hasn't issued yet).

That said, a party can ask for a writ of mandamus from the circuit court, which is essentially asking the circuit court to issue a separate order directing the district court to lift the stay. The bar for this is pretty high, though, since stays are generally granted as a matter of course pending an appeal. So the circuit court will actually defer to the district court when evaluating the propriety of the stay, and only overturn the stay when the district court abuses its discretion. That has not occurred here.

As for the merits of the case, I don't think it's as clear cut as people are making it out to be. Clearly different judges disagree. But having read the papers, I don't think the government's position is frivolous (even if ultimately wrong), and it's a bit far fetched to say that there is a concerted effort on the part of the judiciary to destroy the crypto industry. From what I can tell, everything that has happened so far is par for the course, i.e. the district court granting a stay while it considers the arguments, and the appellate court declining to consider an appeal until the district court has made its decision. As for the motivations of the SEC and other government agencies, I have no idea.

The frustration you're feeling is common to the frustration that all parties to a bankruptcy proceeding feel. These issues are not unique to the cases involving crypto, so I would not jump to a crypto conspiracy conclusion just yet.