I don't agree at all. It is definitely a nice feature, but as with everything else, it's a trade-off. Most people, today, want these features, but it's definitely not true that a payment system "has to" have them. Cash largely doesn't.
It's like saying that any messaging system needs to be traceable, so you can see who sent you something. That is convenient and useful, but we survived until email without it.
> Cash largely doesn't.
If you get a contract/receipts you can use the legal system to attempt to recover your cash. With blockchain that's technically impossible?
There recently was a piece of news about some blockchain believers who locked themselves out of 20 million in <random crypto coin> because they used a "smart contract" and their code was buggy. Both the payer and the payee would like the transaction to go through but neither can do anything about it.
Edit: random link
https://vnexplorer.net/aku-ethereum-nft-launch-ends-with-34m...
How would a cryptocurrency be different here? If the counterparty is known you can still go after them via the legal system. If they are unknown, there would be no way of recovering the cash either.
> I don't think protection against human-factor scams and frauds was ever a goal, you certainly never hear it as an argument.
The problem is any payment system DOES need that. And the competition has it.
Abstract goals without connection to real life needs are nice. Not useful.