They address more than just double spend attacks, but also ownership and control. Without a private key, in a protocol where every transaction must be signed, n

They address more than just double spend attacks, but also ownership and control. Without a private key, in a protocol where every transaction must be signed, no changes can be made to a ledger where balances are associated with corresponding public keys. The human issues that we have from use of the system, fraud, P&D schemes, non-custodial wallets (exchanges) etc, aren't fundamental issues with the technology itself, but with the periphery. Cash can be used to buy drugs, bank accounts can be used for money laundering, financial markets can be manipulated. We must be cognisant of the fact that where there are people, there will be misuse. Crypto is no different. > Crypto effectively assumes that people can't be trusted to exchange currency fairly, but can (and indeed must) be trusted to do everything else (pricing, disclosure, governance, etc.) fairly. Must we assume that pricing is to be trusted? What pricing is this, exchange pricing? If you're using centralised exchanges then the issue is whether you trust the centralised exchange to keep an honest order book, and whether you're able to determine whether the exchange rate reflects the value of the token/asset. Many people have recently begun trading on financial markets, see Gamestop, wallstreetbets etc, without the proper knowledge required to ensure they're making the right decisions. This is no different from buying BTC because your neighbour told you it'll hit $100k by Christmas. These are societal problems from people who want to get rich quick and almost always get hurt trying.