No.
1. Cash is bulky and if you need to store a non-trivial amount it quickly gets expensive (eg. installing safes). Crypto can be stored on a piece of paper, or in your head.
2. cash is treated unfavorably in various legal systems, from civil forfeiture (aka carrying a suspiciously large amount of cash) to outright bans on cash transactions over a certain size
3. crypto can be stored redundantly (ie. 2 of 3 multisig), cash can not.
>2. Can average citizen safely and reliably store crypto on their own anywhere nearly as easily and safely as cash?
If we compare like for like (ie. stuffing it under your mattress doesn't count), then I find the effort to train someone to use a 2 of 3 multisig software to be comparable to installing some sort of floor bolted safe.
2. It is easier, it is safer. Way easier (again, almost no places accept cash for transactions due to AML, I know a guy who used to pay for his cars with briefcases of cash, he stopped being able to do that more than a decade ago...I am in the UK).
3. I used to agree with this point but actually shutting down a P2P network is going to be very tricky in practice. If one govt in the world decides it doesn't want to do this, it won't happen. Crypto is still a terrible customer experience for regular people: fees are unclear, you can put in the wrong address and the money is gone, etc. A lot of this can happen with bank transfers too though (and does, Citi accidentally wired someone $500m in 2020, iirc, and has been unable to get it back).
I come from a traditional finance background (and studied economic history, I did my thesis on monetary policy in the 60s so I am quite familiar with the limits on purchasing gold to prop up Bretton Woods). I was initially sceptical of crypto but, imo, it is a superior technology. Not for all transactions, for example some central banks have introduced instant bank transfers, but for some. And, in some cases, it will be a superior store of value. This is already happening in the place mentioned in the OP: the reason people are taking their money out of banks is crypto, holding cash does nothing for you because inflation is nearly 200% annually, you take it out and by next month your cash is worthless, your life savings wouldn't buy a loaf of bread.
In Vietnam, the largest bill is about $20, which increases the space storage requirements. Let's also remember that people need a safe place to store that cash.
> Way way way easier than Crypto.
Not true at all. Stablecoins, like USDT, are trivial to get and store in quantity.
> Can average citizen safely and reliably store crypto on their own anywhere nearly as easily and safely as cash?
App on a cell phone? Yes. I've travelled all over Vietnam and even in the most remote of remote places, people living in shacks by the side of the road, with no running water or bathrooms, they have 'smart' phones and inexpensive good coverage 4G.
Inflation is big and getting bigger. In Lebanon, it's sky high.
Can you elaborate how crypto solves this issue in an optimal way?
1. You can store cash, if you choose to. Way way way easier than Crypto. This should be the end of this argument but let's continue.
2. Can average citizen safely and reliably store crypto on their own anywhere nearly as easily and safely as cash? Otherwise, you're just at mercy of unregulated "exchanges" as opposed to "banks" and your power is even lower and the horror news stories even more plentiful.
3. Ultimately, crypto is a complicated technological stack that (and we will have a difference of opinions) government, if it sufficiently chooses to, can shut down and control. Crypto introduces a mind boggling chain of technical dependencies and gotchas and risks and dangers, which are super fun for us on HN to play with and argue about, but are a pit of snakes and spikes for most regular people (and just because somebody somewhere who's not technologically adept has used crypto successfully, that does not mean they were not exposed to massive risk; you can play Russian roulette and "win", it does not make it a good idea)