[idopmstuff]

It's just as easy to take the mirror argument, though - crypto has been used to transfer money to terrorist groups, and that money has ultimately been used to kill innocent people. If they had been forced to send money through the traditional financial system, whether electronic or cash, it would have been more costly to them either through some loss of money to government seizure or simply the increases costs of evasion and transfer.

> Crypto is simply providing an alternative for people that have been unjustly stopped from processing payments.

It's also a useful tool for terrorists. This is a point of fact.

To be clear, I'm not saying we should get rid of it, just that this is the overly simplistic argument for doing so without considering the positive. Crypto isn't some outright evil, and neither is KYC. Both are parts of complex solutions to complex problems.

[theturtletalks]

I think our argument can be simplified to centralized vs decentralized systems. Ideally, centralized systems are great. 2 parties can trust and work with each other as a 3rd party is the source of truth. Any of the parties can go to the 3rd when they are wronged and need a resolution. It works great, until it doesn't. In our case, the 3rd party has a conflict of interest and can decide if party 1 or 2 can do business at all.

Decentralized, each user takes on more risk, but the benefit is that no one party is deciding who can do business and who can't. That burden is left on the buyer to decide if the seller is legit and the smart contract can be the source of truth.

The difference is that people who support decentralized systems are not trying to get rid of centralized systems altogether. They understand their necessity, but also realize decentralized systems can add some needed competition. That will improve centralized systems in the future as well.