Agree with the title's premise, but there is no interesting conclusion here, which is regulators and economists like fiat money (I'm being somewhat reductionist

Agree with the title's premise, but there is no interesting conclusion here, which is regulators and economists like fiat money (I'm being somewhat reductionist, but it still isn't a particularly groundbreaking assertion). The author doesn't go on say bitcoin has no value, or no place in the broader financial system. The author makes clear bitcoin won't usurp banks. Which is a very believable point to accept. Ultimately, banks and fractional lending have the upper hand because we collectively believe the outcome is better: higher growth, stable employment, etc. If regulators egregiously fail to deliver these benefits in the future, there's a potential successor waiting in standby. And 10 to 15 years ago, we didn't have that. Overall, crypto is good in ensuring existing actors fulfill the functions they've promised and are obligated to do.