> Transaction cost and/or speed - Security These two, in the context of crypto are incompatible. If you have high security, it means lower speed, higher cost. I

> Transaction cost and/or speed - Security These two, in the context of crypto are incompatible. If you have high security, it means lower speed, higher cost. If you want high speed, low cost, it means lower security. > Anonymous/private payments - Avoiding censorship Yes of course there is a single crypto that has these features, the other 99.99% do not, and by the very design, can not. If these were the features being designed for, crypto would have taken an entirely differnt design path. If these were the problems trying to be solved, they sure went about doing it the hard way. Rather than assuming the motivations, I prefer just to take the motivations that were stated at the time; "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution." I believe that is the problem they were solving for, not any of the others suggested.