_Anything_ that one could get central banks or nation states to agree to use would be valuable. The LOE the technical system (SWIFT, Bitcoin, whatever) is absolutely infinitesimal compared to negotiating a change of that magnitude.

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with third parties offering services on top but you know, the whole cryptocurrency idea is that you don't need them.

Let me refer you back to the original paper: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

The goal was "a purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash". That is, money.

If you are proposing a new goal, a settlement system for couple hundred named organizations with strong relationships, then a) that's not money, and b) the Bitcoin system is socially and technically wrong for that. But if we keep the goalposts in their original location, Bitcoin is clearly a failure when you look at how the competition has done.

These nation state level actors would need to convert their Bitcoin into something that they can actually spend. Governments need to pay employees, contractors, and suppliers. These people want actual currency they can spend.

The main alternative would be to issue a Bitcoin backed currency. But then you're just re-creating the gold standard, and all of the problems that go along with that.