Leaving aside the legality for the moment, because it's complex, jurisdiction-dependent, and constantly in flux, "crypto transaction laundering" is not in and of itself unethical. It depends on what you are intending to conceal. The parallels to encrypted messaging are really quite strong IMO.

If you are trying to hide a purchase (with your own money) from your wife because you think she wouldn't approve, that's totally ethical (if a bit of a silly relationship tactic). Similar if you're trying to hide a donation to an unpopular politician or charity from your employer. If you're trying to hide a donation to a militant organization, it's much more ethically complex and depends on the goals and actions of the organization. If you're trying to hide the source of ill-gotten money, it's likely unethical.

Separately, while the tool might be "primarily" used for unethical things, that does not make the tool unethical itself. Again it is the actions of the users that determine this. Even if hypothetically 95% of Tor users are pedophiles and ransomware crackers, that does not invalidate the "legitimate" ethical use of the tool by the remaining 5%.

It's unethical if the tool doesn't take reasonable steps to prevent unethical usage.

For example implementing KYC and AML processes.

By your logic the road crew who build the interstate are unethical because they happily build roads knowing money launderers will use them, without taking the slightest precaution to stop them.

> Let's be honest with ourselves. Mixers are used primarily for crypto transaction laundering.

About as true a statement as Tor being primarily used for CSAM, and no-one actually caring about e2e encryption who isn't trying to hide from the law.

>no-one actually caring about e2e encryption who isn't trying to hide from the law.

Pity the undesirable, lest one day ye be counted amongst them.