The issue at hand is the potential value of “distributed consensus and verifiable transactions with no central trusted authority”.

My point is that most people seem to prefer having a central trusted authority, specifically for custodianship.

That’s why most people put money that is significant to them somewhere in the banking system rather than a shoebox or a tin can somewhere. They want that money to be be traceable, accessible, and recoverable.

There are exceptions, of course, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule, IMO.

I can't help but think that the "accessibility" is doing most of the work here. Handling cash is a pain in the ass. Giving a merchant a series of 23 numbers over the computer is comparatively easier.