I wonder if you are misinterpreting the dependency structure of the core action that powers the "real economy" which is the act of exchange. Before state curre

I wonder if you are misinterpreting the dependency structure of the core action that powers the "real economy" which is the act of exchange. Before state currencies, the barter system existed -- even today, it still does exist, and crypto in a lot of ways is in theory supposed to bring things digitally back to that age old system. States have control over banks only so far as they maintain a /global/ monopoly over force and a mandate in popular support which they can practically demonstrate. What you're talking about is the distance between de facto and de jure, and I think what you're missing is how the former leads the latter, not the other way around. This isn't to say that your second point is completely incorrect, I just think it misplaces the center of gravity -- I think that will practically lie with the merchant given that an exchange can be decentralized enough that there is no "neck to squeeze" when misbehavior occurs.