[SwanRonson]

Personal opinions aside it is a valid use case. They can track the wallet and they will, but they cannot close/lock the wallet as they did bank accounts. As you’ve implied there are methods to achieve anonymity but they require technical knowledge. If this becomes a commonly understood use case it will likely become easier for the average person.

[NikolaNovak]

I believe in this case they did close/lock the wallet, as it was held by the exchange. How far they go to recoup money that did make it to individuals is up to the attorney general and courts and politicians to decide - but critically, means are extremely there. It is empathically and trivially known who the recipients are. This is the part that feels like we are intentionally ignoring - eventually crypto intersects with the real world.

There were technically superior and more anonymous ways to do that kind of particular transaction of course. But we may differ as to what "average person" is and what their technical competence will be in the near to medium future. I believe average person still has tremendous phishing and scam risk with a regular, regulated, fairly static, designed for ease of use, documented, go-to-branch-and-we'll-guide-you-through-it electronic banking. I am skeptical of our ability to create a safe path for the average person through the dynamic, unregulated, ever-changing, technically complex, myriad-clients-and-zillion-methods-and-gazillion-exchanges all chock-full of scammers world of crypto.