People in small villages have modern cell phones and thanks to the govt military owning the primary telco, fast internet. They might not have access to a bank due to being so remote. They also don't trust their banks, for good reason [1].
[1] https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/vietnam-bank-ceo-gets-life...
Meanwhile in SF, the homeless all have cell phones. They are also frequent customers of Bitcoin ATMs according to an convenience store clerk that I asked because he watches over one.
2) How exactly is it a good idea to have your wallet on a cellphone?
As for homeless & Bitcoin ATMs. Yes: 3) That's how I'd launder money too. Pay off a homeless person to go to a bitcoin ATM. 4) That's how I'd conduct drug deals too if I were homeless and in the drug trade as buyer or seller.
You can't just say "homeless people use bitcoin ATMs therefore bitcoin is good for homeless people".
(no, I'm not saying homeless = drug related, and you know I'm not)
What I mean is that this is a non-solution to that problem.
It's the same logic where cryptocurrency advocates say that if a country's currency goes down the crapper then the people can use bitcoin, and the country can't break that! But why can't they just use dollars, or euros, instead? Because the local government would make that illegal! Why wouldn't they make bitcoin use illegal? Because... because... shut up!