This is a tongue-in-cheek sarcastic reply, right? Because the only two cash-less options I'm aware are crypto, which is filled with rug-pulls, scams, and DPR-wannabes, or just having everything in commercial banks which is exactly what got the GP into this position in the first place.

Maybe we can go back to bartering?

How does the existence of rug pulls (aka scams) invalidate the option of moving to crypto?

It's not the existence of crime, crime happens in real money, too. It's the complete and utter lack of anything else but crime. Originally, Bitcoin only appealed to 1) geeks who enjoyed the technical details and 2) people who wanted to buy drugs. Then, you got to phase 2, where bolstered by the liquidity provided by the people trading drugs and the unbridled enthusiasm of the geeks, the value went up. Then, The Silk Road got shut down, and the value started to fluctuate wildly, leading to runaway speculation, attracting the "fight club for finance" guys. Those guys marketed crypto to the broader flock of normal people, because they needed bag-holders for their (illegal securities trading) schemes. The influx of people gullible enough to listen to the finance bros provided a pre-filtered pool of people who would make good marks for scams.

The useful applications of crypto are illegal (buying narcotics) and the majority of the ecosystem today is both illegal and completely economically nonproductive.

In phase 1, how is geeks enjoying the technical details illegal? You said "It's the complete and utter lack of anything else but crime".

Regardless of that, you've stated that crypto can be used to buy things. The parent post said "Let's transition to cashless society". Why can crypto not be used?