«As stated in other comments, Bitcoin is hardly anonymous anymore» Cryptocurrencies ≠ Bitcoin. There are quite a few cryptocurrencies that provide full anonymi

«As stated in other comments, Bitcoin is hardly anonymous anymore» Cryptocurrencies ≠ Bitcoin. There are quite a few cryptocurrencies that provide full anonymity (eg. Zcash with its zk-SNARKs.) Besides, Bitcoin is sufficiently anonymous for most. «Fraud was (and likely still is) rampant in the digital currency community when Bitcoin hit its peak» Still, for the recipient of an online payment, receiving cryptocurrencies (specifically Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc: the big ones that can't easily be 51%-attacked) are the less risky option that exists for them. «Also, at least with credit there's legal recourse. It's at least something compared to nothing with digital currencies.» False. There is legal recourse for cryptocurrencies. Governments have and will continue to legally prosecute cases of crypto theft. It might be harder to recover the money, but there definitely is legal recourse. «At Bitcoin's peak there was a significant cost to doing any transfers. This is now admittedly lower but to the average person I don't think this is a strong enough argument alone.» Global remittance fees cost an average of 7.13% (https://remittanceprices.worldbank.org/en https://remittanceprices.worldbank.org/en) which is terribly high. The crypto tx fee is typically much smaller. This is still a strong argument in their favor. «takes so much computing power to confirm a transaction» Transactions don't consume energy. The transaction rate could increase without necessarily increasing the energy consumption. This is a big misconception floating around cryptocurrencies. «Also, what do you propose when quantum becomes mainstream? Every wallet in existing currencies will be cracked in mere seconds» And legacy banking will break too (VPNs, IPsec, encryption at rest, TLS shopping sessions, and so on.)