Even if you want to put predatory lending practices that are at the very heart of those networks aside (why would you, but hypothetically) you are left with networks that disproportionately disadvantage certain classes of people: a good example is sex workers, it being the case that these networks are managed inside the US they are fundamentally puritanical. Usually these arguments are couched in environmental euphemisms such as "there is higher risk". These measures are proxied into networks that run on top of the lowest network, but they are positively stimulated to keep them that way.
If those things don't bother you, you may be swayed by the fact that they're both based inside the US. Broadly speaking, we don't need to get into why that is an entity that tends to spread suffering around.
TLDR; custody banking model keeps people out of control of their own property.
There is a big problem with private property rights and safety guaranties of your capital today in most of the world. There are three problems: unstable govs in 3rd world countries, capital moving restrictions and QEs.
I'm, for example, not from developed country, so I have several restrictions on my own money, some of which may be applied to US/Europe citizens and some may not:
1) my gov, speaking softly, is not stable. I have no guarantee on my bank accounts in the long term (eg 20+ years). I can assume that funds can be at least inflated in several times, if not withdrawn in the name of some "patriotic" gov initiative. It would be much better to have my funds away from such jurisdiction. It's safer to have the funds out of **any** jurisdiction due to some political conflicts and attacks. US and their banks are likely to freeze Russian/China/Iran citizens funds as well when another conflict will arise.
2) Capital moving. Even if someone assume that some jurisdiction is safe - there is another problem - not any country makes capital flowing outside its border legal. You just **can't** move your **own** funds somewhere where you see it fit the most. Domestic banks may be completely controlled by the gov and too much cash can be easily arrested on its way by customs.
3) QEs, which is my favorite part and applied to any human on the earth today. Your money is used to "save" someone without your direct permission even if you live in good country, paid your taxes and did nothing wrong. Just by printing more money - practically making your hard-earned money cheaper and less useful. They'd say that you can move your money to stocks (US, by the way, there is no stable stocks but theirs), but you both will need to pay tax from your so called profits (the hell, on SP500 I won't even earn on the long run, I barely save initial funds considering inflation!) and forced to invest in american economy, which not everyone (surprise!) want to do. And stocks can fail badly.
Currently, crypto traders are busy learning that all the rest of the financial world, including things like credit and financial derivatives (encapsulated in smart contracts), can still apply to cryptocurrencies.
Things like consumer credit and fractional reserve banking will show up in crypto soon (if they haven't already). It's just a matter of trusted entities offering specific smart contracts.
The one thing I really dislike about most crypto is the traceability: unless you use privacy coins (which themselves have dubious security claims), every transaction is 100% traceable.
Before there was a viable alternative to POW for achieving the goals of a decentralised currency, it was at least debateable about whether the benefits of the decentralised currency were worth the cost of POW compared to the alternatives, but now that it appears POS is a viable alternative, there can be no question - POW costs too much power.
Then of course there is the whole notion that using a lot of power is in and of itself a big evil, which is ridiculous. Even from an environmental perspective, big industries are by far the biggest offenders. By shifting the perspective of the discourse away from the real offenders towards other "problems", we are doing a disservice to the actual issues.
At this point I'm convinced it's a movement composed primarily of people who don't understand what they're talking about, sprinkled with a light dash of actual malicious actors. This makes sense, as that's a realistic cross-section of the internet at large.