I respect your position that "going full-crypto-Monty" may cause a crypto currency to be rejected by a society that values some rules, like anti-money-launderin

I respect your position that "going full-crypto-Monty" may cause a crypto currency to be rejected by a society that values some rules, like anti-money-laundering. But crypto currencies were borne out of a distrust for banks and government money policy, like inflation. In my view, the fallacy was/is that by putting trust "in the network", these policies could be avoided, not duplicated. But that's impossible: crypto currencies merely shift trust to the network operators (who, for financial gain, become increasingly consolidated), and to the maintainers of the code, who ultimately determine the rules. Maybe the point is that with a diversity of currencies, there is a diversity of policy choice. But that only increases the exchange problem, which defeats the purpose of a currency (that is, being widely accepted).