Would Crazy Last Man Standing be viable?

One of the main arguments I've seen against last man standing is that in a multi player game two players that trade material both lose the material compared to the other players and so in the case of last man standing each player would tend to only develop enough to get a good defensive position and wait for the other players to slowly weaken, but since all players would use this approach nothing much would happen and the game would be very boring.

In the case of crazyhouse two players that trade pieces do not mutually lose material compared to other players as captured material does not die but instead goes into the pocket of the one who captured it to later be placed back on the board.  Intuitively this makes it seem like in a Crazy 4pc game players might be very active even with Last Man Standing as they wouldn't need to worry as much about losing material from trades.  So I wonder if this would make Last Man Standing more viable in Crazy 4pc than in regular 4pc.

Interesting idea. 

I never liked playing 4FFA because of that, competition is always negative for both sides.

But, in Crazyhouse, it is even benefitial the trades (temporarily bad, but benefitial overall, maybe with some restriction to where you put, like in Shogun, where you need to put the new piece on your half of the board), and the advantages are kept. This may be a decisive feature for FFA chess in general and your Last Man Standing variant. Good luck!