There's no confusion. I've pointed out that protecting consumers from immutable fraud via insurance premiums, as you propose, is much costlier than having a trusted intermediary police and reverse fraud. You have pointed to no errors in my assumptions or logic.

You simply believe that we "should" not trust intermediaries, which is fine, but you must accept the consequence that consumer protections will be weaker and/or costlier to implement. This is why Bitcoin was for the most part never more attractive to consumers than cards.