[nepthar]

I agree. There is nothing to suggest that something can't both behave in a regulatory environment and exist if that environment fails. Cars, for instance - They require registration so long as the body enforcing registration exists. If that changes, cars can still run.

[ineedasername]

The paradox is in both wanting the cars (well, crypto) alive & function and also not be subject to the regulatory environment, while that environment is alive & functioning. That seems to be the dream of a certain subset of crypto enthusiasts: Widespread crypto that bypasses existing regulations. I don't think it can get to that point. In order to gain widespread adoption, you need on-ramps & off-ramps for people to actually use it. Those are the regulatory choke points for crypto. Like an unregistered car you can drive on your own property, but the minute you take out on the highway you're obligated to play by the rules that govern the highway.

You can't buy crypto without the consent of banking systems that are subject to regulatory frameworks. You can't make a loan payment with crypto without converting it to the local currency, putting it in a bank, and writing a check or ACH transfer or getting the bank to convert it to local cash.

The vast majority of major transaction that require money cannot be done with crypto, and as that changes they will still only be done with crypto by interfacing with systems subject to regulatory structures. That keeps unregulated crypto in relatively small scale shadow economies. Sort of like cash, except cash is more or less dead as a means of making large transactions.