Transferability is a basic primitive of crypto but not the only feature. Others like decentralized escrow and multi-signatory wallets achieve new functionality that is non trivial in traditional banking system.
Uhh, multi-signatory bank accounts are about as old as banking.
In comparison you and several friends can set up a m-of-n account in a couple of transactions, closer to the flow and ease of setting up a new WhatsApp group.
The value fluctuates but this is where users would typically send USDC or DAI which is pegged to the dollar.
My crypto transfers also arrive in seconds and there is no US company extracting rent, blocking my funds, asking for third party data, or dictating how a payment protocol should operate.
Now, what makes you think that the regulators in well-run countries will continue to accept this inefficient and unregulated money alternative full of scams?
Crypto currencies could be banned to quite an extent (mining, on/off ramps, maybe even the network traffic, which is unencrypted, if I am not mistaken.)
You can always count on one thing in government. Profit Motive! Gerry ginsler was the professor of crypto at MIT for crying out loud. I'm sure US politicians have tons of BTC.
Brazil has had same business day electronic transfers (TED) since 2002 and next day electronic transfers (DOC) since 2001 or earlier. However people often didn't want to use them for small amounts because of the flat fee.
Brazilian also rarely use checks to pay rent, utilities and other similar stuff. Since 1993, we have a thing called boleto bancário which is like an invoice that has its own number and bar code ao that people can pay them at any bank (with some rare exceptions).
Brazil's Central Bank (BCB) recently-ish introduced Pix, a digital and near instantaneous electronic transfer scheme that is free for natural persons and that is supported by every bank and bank-like financial organizations due to a BCB imposition.
So overall I would say that banking in Brazil is way more standardized and practical than in the US.
But the whole world is not Sweden. Even in America, which is relatively first world with relatively decent institutions, our regulators failed to coordinate a decent electronic money transmission system. Now imagine being in Turkey or LatAm or Sri Lanka. (Or even just being in Europe and needing to interface with anywhere outside the European utopia.) Agree that decentralized protocols come with many inherent inefficiencies and frictions. But when institutions fail, the only alternative are decentralized protocols.
In many ways I see the pro- vs. anti- crypto division coming down to how much people believe in institutions. Most crypto criticisms come down to an appeal to just focus on building better institutions rather than waste mountains of talent on overly complex decentralized protocols. "Instead of all this on-chain stablecoin nonsense, why don't we focus our efforts on electing better financial regulators, who can bring European like money transfers to North America and eventually the globe?"
Whereas I think pro-crypto people (myself included), tend to think of any attempts to change public policy as /dev/null. Most of the world is saddled with horribly dysfunctional institutions, and it's not easy to fix. I have much more confidence in our ability to engineer solutions than mustering the necessary political and social coordination necessary to fix governments, policy, regulators and institutions.