With all due respect, I don't think you understand the full weight of what you're arguing. Which was the point of my original comment. You don't get to just pick-and-choose which aspects of crypto are beneficial and ignore the side-effects. Crypto, by design, bypasses the legal system. There are some heavy consequences to that design.
I acknowledge the higher risk associated with crypto and self-custody. I just think the capability it provides is valuable. Like most things it's a nuanced issue and it's not all good or bad.
A lot of your argued side-effects are also true of cash. Yet most (at least for now) are not arguing to get rid of cash because not every transaction can be monitored and controlled.
Crypto gives more capability to individuals which is good (similar to cash). It creates a store of value outside of government monetary policy (in the BTC case more similar to gold).
People tend to simplify these things into "crypto is entirely bad" or "crypto is entirely good". I think it's a new tool that gives individuals new capabilities, but also has its own risks. I value the new capabilities and acknowledge the risks.
> "Crypto, by design, bypasses the legal system. There are some heavy consequences to that design."
This is mostly false. In the case of public ledgers - it's even easier to see transaction history than it is with cash (though this is less true of Zcash). It doesn't bypass the legal system it just requires a higher degree of intervention for your money to be taken from you (which is often desirable, especially if living under an oppressive government). Does cash bypass the legal system by design?
