This. I was thinking seriously about investing in bitcoins, but realized governments across the world won’t give up their control over people’s behavior by controlling money supply, either by minting currency or by means of interest rates.
Not everything is black and white. While the government can enact laws, and enforce those with courts and guns, on a practical level it is easier, for example, to flee a hostile country with Bitcoin than with a checking account held at a local bank.
This feels like something that could be proven given the current climate. How many refugees from the multitude of currently-invaded countries are carrying their assets as bitcoins vs. traditional items of value and cash?
Given the tremendous volatility of a bitcoin investment, I doubt many people outside of the upper middle class have bitcoins to begin with, and I really doubt they'd buy bitcoins with what wealth they have access to before fleeing (traditional wisdom says that purchasing items with inherent value that are easy to carry).
But again, that's something that could be proven with the ledger. It would be a good story if the evidence backed it up.
This incentives engagement by people who wish to evade legal and regulatory controls. For the most part, in the West, these are not people escaping corruption or autocracy.
1. Proof-of-work has inherent, fundamental, no-way-to-work-around-it issues regarding scale. The more value Bitcoin holds, the more Argentina's-worths-of-energy that is needed to keep it secure. That is by design when it comes to proof-of-work. It is a guaranteed dead end. Proof-of-stake does not have that same problem, but ironically I see so much antipathy towards proof-of-stake by large swaths of the crypto community.
2. The fundamental idea that crypto can "escape" government financial controls is false. Or, at least it's no different than the fact that selling meth is also capable of evading government controls, but at huge risk. Government can make anything it wants illegal if it so desires.