Theoretically Monero would be a possible solution, but only if your sole requirement is anonymity. Heavy emphasis on only if though, since payment systems are much, much more than that requirement (i.e. dispute handling, chargebacks, insurance, fraud identification, etc.).
I don't think there are any crypto implementations today that could compete with existing mainstream systems, which in itself is a statement that opens a can of worms on HN, but maybe someday.
That depends how you look at it. Crypto also has other advantages that payment systems haven't: any arbritary amount from 0.00001 to millions in 1 go, instant (especially advantage for the large numbers, since banks cannot do that), smart contracts etc.
Dispute handling and chargebacks are also very disputable for wire transfers. I have to give my ID to the bank every few years, yet people get scammed with wire transfers all the time and get a "sorry can't do anything about your lost money" from the bank.
> instant (especially advantage for the large numbers, since banks cannot do that)
It's not instant. According to https://www.crypto51.app/ the cost to 51% attack ethereum for 1 hour is $92k. This means it's $2.2 million for one day or 24 hours. Let's say you want to transfer $10 million via ethereum. Then the party who gives you the eth can perform a double spending attack, only pretending to give you the $10 million while getting something else from you in exchange as part of the original deal that takes one day to be transfferred to them. As long as that something else is worth more than $2.2 million, that other party has made a return. The only good remedy is waiting for the double spending cost to exceed the contract volume, but it means that the currency isn't instant any more, or at least is instant for small sums of money only.
What do you mean by "especially advantage for the large numbers, since banks cannot do that" ?
Bitcoin requires a validation cycle or two in order to be certain that your transaction is going to be on the main chain, so it's 10-20 minutes.
For traditional infrastructure, the RTGS (real time gross settlement systems) accessible to banks and large customers handle transactions in seconds. If you're in a treasury department of a company who routinely needs to move large amounts around, doing so nearly instantaneously is absolutely a solved problem.
Punching holes in certain payment methods (like money wires) isn't the same as building a case for crypto.
Also crypto isn't instant. Bitcoin takes 10 minutes if you're lucky, even longer if the network is maxed at 7 transactions a second (comparatively, Visa handles 42,000 transactions a second).
Adoption. If we can buy groceries, get served at a restaurant or by street vendor, pay for utilities/fuel, and receive medical attention while only using Monero, zcash, or cash shuffling financial privacy could be in reach.
None of the things you list are "benefits" if you're an individual. They are only "benefits" to governments because it gives them additional means of controlling the bleating flock.
Money laundering is typically tied illegal behavior, things such as tax evasion, extortion, trafficking, etc. Having the means to deal with money laundering helps inhibit the illegal activity tied to it.
Assuming that you're an average Belgian, the effect of money laundering is that you pay taxes while the criminals don't, so the money that your government could and would have spent in things that benefit you gets stolen instead.
Less money laundering would mean that you could either get more gov't services or lower taxes.
I don't think there are any crypto implementations today that could compete with existing mainstream systems, which in itself is a statement that opens a can of worms on HN, but maybe someday.