The vast majority Og people will likely use a custodian for their crypto. For them it will feel like banking feels now.
Just like coinbase provide a visa card with collateral i your crypto.
So essentially these questions really are answered -- it is not an all or nothing. We will keep, eg. Visa to facilitate retailer transactions with collateral in, eg., bitcoin. Bow you can dispute and everything and you pay in crypto.
Also, why would we want bitcoin or any crypto if most people will just use Visa? How does that achieve decentralization? I doubt the goal of cryptocoins is just "replace the financial backend that big companies use".
Centralized web is horrible and dead. Literally _anything_ is a better alternative. The user can be convinced to adopt superior tech even if he does not explicitly know the problems. It just has to feel better.
> it doesn't need to be technically elegant, but user-facing elegant.
dont worry bro. the "set user = happy" voodoo dance has already been done. every cryptocoin wallet is a browser plugin or mobile app with 90% of code for themeing with all the bugs and slowness smartcrap/web users are accustomed to. you are even discouraged from rnunning yoyr own node
Until there is fraud, a dispute, or an innocent mistake.
For most people, a decentralized platform will usually be worse (speed, latency), and only very rarely better, than a centralized server. The "paying to access a database" will introduce a lot of issues both for users and developers, no matter how you implement it, for barely any user-facing improvement. And centralized processors appeared to make things easier, so you'd need a payment platform that is as least as easy and, also, that protects you against scams (AFAIK, you can't do too much if someone steals your crypto wallet or you forget the password).
So while I agree that web3 could provide identify + payments, it doesn't need to be technically elegant, but user-facing elegant.