The main reason is that its not 2012 any more and the executive branches already know what crypto is and won't spend resources on that war of attrition. The do

The main reason is that its not 2012 any more and the executive branches already know what crypto is and won't spend resources on that war of attrition. The do-ers in government already know that their available tools to stop crypto would only slow it down as it routes around them. The legislative branch could easily take a less educated reaction, and you saw that in 2011-2012 in the US. In the meantime, crypto grew faster than the knee-jerk machinations of government could react and it is already big enough and the officials are more educated about it. There doesn't need to be a vested interest in the governing institution. Distributed ledgers offer a chance at a more efficient and egalitarian form of governance itself, without invoking the 19th century political ideologies that shaped the 20th century and now prevent anyone from proposing anything radical. Blockchains and DLT currently don't achieve that, and various agencies in the executive branch recognize its ability to offer them benefits and adapt to reach their potential.