Certainly not. As I keep telling people here, cryptos are property, not currency. Why should governments be in the business of telling people what type of property they can and can't own?
A coin is nothing but a couple of large numbers that are easy to multiply together but very difficult to factor...that's it. If the people of earth want to assign large fiat currency values to complicated key-pairs, then why shouldn't they have the right to do that?
Of course crypto-traders need government...like we need libraries and schools and police and all that, just like everyone else, right?
Uh what? That's like the second biggest thing the government does after, you know, army.
You can't own a dead lobster shorter than 6 3/4 inches in the United States without committing a felony, even if the lobster met its untimely end without your assistance.
Of course that's what the government should be in the business of doing otherwise we'd likely all be dead, and separately, there wouldn't be any more lobsters.
Private property right go back to the Magna Carta and form the basis of the US Constitution and it's Bill of Rights.
If you believe it's governments duty to control all property rights than your a Marxist and to be honest, I have no interest in debating you.
Bitcoin is regressive and would be harmful to the economy if it obtained widespread adoption, and therefore, the government has the right to curtail its use and ownership.
I mean, maybe you're claiming that I can't transfer the property, but that I have the right to own the property as long as the government approves of where it's going. Sure. That certainly reduces people's willingness to assign a large fiat currency value to my pantry.
Even that I'm not sold on. You could argue that it gives incentives for the rich and powerful to maintain the status quo since their own riches become out of reach from the corrupt government.
Meanwhile the commoners are still very much under threat since most of their assets will be physical (their house, their clothes, their belongings, their bodies etc...).
The idea that cryptocurrencies are empowering the poor makes about as much sense to me as trickle down economics. If you are in a position to benefit from Bitcoin it means that you already have a significant amount of disposable income you can convert into bitcoin and afford to "HODL" in your wallet for a while. "Being able to transfer money across political boundaries without censorship" is completely irrelevant if you're a poor farmer in Buthan or an elderly shoemaker in rural Pakistan. Transfer what money, to whom and for what purpose?
This whole concept is just social-washing cryptocurrencies to obfuscate that it's profoundly libertarian (the USA flavor) at the core. If you consider that the government is always the enemy and it can't be fixed and should instead be thoroughly destroyed, then and only then do cryptocurrencies make sense. It's not about good vs. bad government, it's about no government.