How is it not directly comparable? People use cash, checks, wire transfers, credit cards, etc. to make or receive payments all of the time. There's no reason why you can't compare those from the user's perspective — if I want to buy a cup of coffee, how long does it take, how much does it cost, how hard is it, etc.?

> It literally doesn't matter how much energy it uses, as long as those properties are achieved.

This is like saying it doesn't matter how slow it is as long as your computing machine is Turing complete. It doesn't matter if you achieve those properties on an unworkable system and it especially isn't true that more than a tiny fraction of people value them above cost or utility — a drug deal might care a lot about untraceable but the average person doesn't care enough to pay more or use something inconvenient.

> How is it not directly comparable?

Because banks were never supposed to provide untraceable, uncensorable, unsanctionable, anonymous transactions. They do the opposite.

Cryptocurrencies are not banks. They're coins. Analogous to cash which also allows for private transactions. Cryptocurrency is an attempt to create a digital cash system. It has nothing to do with banks.

> the average person doesn't care enough to pay more or use something inconvenient

Yes, this is why bitcoin failed. Normal people can't transact with it. The world will not change until everyone is transacting in cryptocurrency, leaving USD and all other currencies behind.