I think you are projecting your beliefs onto them. Mixers, privacy chains, and ZK privacy schemes have all been implemented because everyone in crypto acknowledges the lack of privacy.

The WSJ on the other hand…

You are confusing the enthusiasts with the people who understand crypto. Both groups existed, but the enthusiasts group made many claims that anyone who had even minimal understanding didn't believe.

> Mixers, privacy chains, and ZK privacy schemes

Does any of this stuff actually help bypass KYC requirements for legal offramps in developed countries?

Probably not. I believe exchanges are meant to block transactions of tainted coins. And using a mixer immediately marks the coins as tainted.

I haven’t really used any of them, but my belief is that the USG wouldn’t have sanctioned TornadoCash if it didn’t work.

Satoshi (and many other OG members of bitcointalk) knew, and tried to improve the protocol. BTC was not set in stone at the beginning. It's just at some point Satoshi disappeared, and moonfags[1] who controlled the capital (miners and exchanges) weren't interested in any technical improvements that may make regulators more angry, causing the end of most innovation in the cryptocurrency space.

[1]Sorry for the very colloquial term, I don't know a better one. I mean people who care about cryptocurrencies only as a speculative "investment".

Bitcoin chose a certain set of tradeoffs, and other coins choose different sets. It has its advantages. There's no need to project such negativity onto other projects for making different design choices.

Yeah that’s super offensive, I would avoid it altogether.

Just say crypto bros. We all know someone who treats crypto like it's CrossFit. We'll get what you mean. Even a miner and exchanger is a crypto bro, even if they don't want to admit it. They're in it for the money.