I think your right, but you could make the same argument for a lot of traditional businesses that deal in money, transfers/remittance or non-IG securities.

Also this just happened: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-15/blackrock... which could be a game changer for adoption.

Scaring off is a weird way to phrase it.

It's like saying that Linux 's inherent capability for copyright violation (cp tool) will never be fully fixed. Linux isn't "on the edge of legitimacy" as a result.

It's just that with AML there's a much much larger marketing budget on the part of the people pushing against financial freedom.

This is not the right analogy for cryptocurrency.

The "Linux" in this case is cryptography itself. It actually used to be restricted. In the 1990s the United States still placed export restrictions on computer cryptography software, but those were sensibly removed. (You couldn't even distribute a web browser with full-strength HTTPS support under those rules!)

Today nobody has a problem with the availability of cryptographic algorithms. It's the prevailing applications in cryptocurrency specifically that create the problem because they run counter to existing laws. Just like if you use Linux to run a piracy network, the problem isn't Linux but what you do with it.

The Netherlands is trying to put up rules to make crypto compliant. Which is exactly why Binance is leaving.

Financial freedom is apparently a code word for tax evasion- not a surprise since the whole thing was embraced by American libertarians.